D 884 
F83 
-opy 1 


9r> 

\ 


THE SMOKE NUISANCE AND ITS REGULA¬ 
TION, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
THE CONDITION PREVAILING IN 
PHILADELPHIA. 


Discussion at the Stated Meeting of the Franklin Institute, held 
May-June, 1897. 


(Reprinted from the Journai, of the Franklin Institute, June-July, 1897.) 



1897. 










. . » 

■'if 

■Ifc <. & 


•£v' 


















































«»t ■ ;>' ?T*. 


ft- K . 
















■ 








- 






^ f ». 



















, \ i 
0 \Y< ? 1 













. 

■v^ ' 



? ?V| 5 • " 4 y "•> *’*•? v ■ " /. 

- 

.-■ • ' 7 .- .. ■ - . • '..I • 


'i > ‘if 




[Reprinted from the Journal of the Franklin Institute, June-July, 1897.] 


THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE. 

Stated Meeting , April 21, 1897. 

Mr. John Birkinbine, President, in the chair. 


The SMOKE NUISANCE and its REGULATION, with 
SPECIAL REFERENCE to the CONDITION 
PREVAILING in PHILADELPHIA. 


DISCUSSION. 

The President opened the subject by reference to the 
circumstance that the Board of Health of the city of Phila¬ 
delphia had requested the appointment, by the Franklin 
Institute, of a committee to co-operate with the Board, in 
considering ways and means for the abatement of the grow¬ 
ing evils arising from the increasing use of bituminous coal 
within the city limits. He announced that Mr. A. E. Outer- 
bridge, Jr., had been invited to open the discussion. 

A. E. Outerbridge, Jr.:— In accepting the invitation 
of the Secretary of the Institute to open this discussion, I 


[Copies of the Journal y containing this paper, may be purchased at Fifty 
Cents each. Address Actuary, Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pa.] 






2 


assume that a resume of the scientific investigations that 
have been made in the past, and a brief statement of the 
general principles underlying the problem of prevention or 
abatement of the smoke nuisance, will suffice to indicate the 
scope of the inquiry which we have been requested by the 
Board of Health of Philadelphia to make, with a view of 
offering some practical suggestions to aid that body in pre¬ 
paring a suitable smoke ordinance, should we find it feasible 
and advisable, for presentation to the Mayor and Councils. 

The subject is by no means a novel one, although it is 
true that factoriesdn America were formerly established, as 
a rule, in sparsely settled districts, where fuel was cheap 
and smoke prevention was not an important consideration. 
The present high price of anthracite coal, compared with the 
greatly decreased cost of bituminous coal, is now causing 
manufacturers in this city to reluctantly discard the more 
costly fuel and to substitute the cheaper, smoke-producing 
bituminuous coal. 

Formerly the smoke-stacks of factories in this city 
towered high above neighboring buildings, and the smoke, 
when emitted, was carried away by the winds, causing little 
annoyance to the neighbors. The development of modern 
“sky-scraper” office buildings surrounding industrial estab¬ 
lishments, far overtopping their chimneys, is rapidly chang¬ 
ing these old conditions, and the question of prevention or 
abatement of discharge of black smoke from the chimneys 
of such factories within the city limits has now become an 
important problem, which cannot be longer put aside. 

It is not the first time that the services of this Institute 
have been requested by the city authorities in discussing 
and solving municipal engineering and mechanical ques¬ 
tions. The results of such deliberations have heretofore 
proved beneficial to the city and creditable to the reputa¬ 
tion of the Institute. The present topic is a fitting one for 
our consideration, and it requires very careful and judicious 
treatment. The purpose of the foundation of this Institu¬ 
tion was, and its motto is: “The promotion of the mechanic 
arts.” It is, therefore, self-evident that no legislation 
which would tend to injure or embarrass any of our great 


3 


industries would be likely to meet with favor. On the other 
hand, and for this reason, any practical suggestions which 
we may be enabled to make, looking to smoke abatement,, 
will carry great weight with the City Councils, with manu¬ 
facturers, and with all people interested in the comfort and 
health of our citizens, the cleanliness and beauty of our 
public buildings, private dwellings and streets, and, in a 
word, in the continued prosperity of this great manufactur¬ 
ing city in the future. 

In the course of some investigations made during the 
past year, I have found that unwise and ignorant legislation 
has been the chief cause of failure of some of the smoke 
ordinances which have been passed in several Western cities 
where soft coal is the principal fuel used. 

Here, for example, is an ordinance more than ten years 
old, making it a penitentiary offence for an individual to 
permit black smoke to escape from his chimney. I doubt if 
any such offender (in the city which shall be nameless) has 
ever been so punished. The very absurd and preposterous 
nature of the penalty made the ordinance practically a “ dead 
letter” from its inception. Other ordinances in the collec¬ 
tion now before you vary greatly with respect to their inher¬ 
ent merits; some are comparatively good, some are posi¬ 
tively bad, but all are, no doubt, capable of improvement. 

The president of the Board of Health of Philadelphia 
has been the recipient of numerous complaints from citi¬ 
zens—more especially since the recent large increase in the 
use of bituminous coal in industrial establishments—of 
annoyance from smoke discharge, and, wishing to avoid 
mistakes, has placed the matter in our hands for investiga¬ 
tion and advice, and our Board of Managers has wisely con¬ 
cluded, in order to insure a full discussion of the subject, to 
authorize the secretary to issue a call for a sort of scientific 
“ town meeting,” to which a general invitation has been 
extended. 

I am informed that quite a number of gentlemen from 
this city and elsewhere, who are practically familiar with 
the subject to be discussed, have accepted the invitation 
and are present and prepared to offer their views to-night. 


4 


I will, therefore, merely give you, in an informal, conversa¬ 
tional way, an outline of the subject to be discussed, 
indicating also the proper road which I think we should 
travel, and to which we should confine ourselves. 

More than fifty years ago the way was prepared in 
England by the appointment of a royal commission of fif¬ 
teen distinguished scientists, manufacturers and others, in¬ 
cluding the Lord Mayor of London, to investigate the sub¬ 
ject of the smoke nuisance in that city. A vast amount of 
testimony was taken, and valuable information gathered 
from a variety of sources. 

Three fundamental questions were formulated and pro¬ 
pounded to many persons skilled in the arts and sciences, viz: 

(1) Is it practicable to prevent or diminish the discharge 
of smoke ? 

(2) Is it advisable ? 

(3) In the event of an affirmative answer, would you re¬ 
commend legislative enactment ? 

The concensus of opinion was that the discharge of black 
smoke was merely the visible sign of imperfect combustion, 
and that the time would certainly come when it would be 
both practicable and necessary to prevent such discharge. 

That this time has now come—certainly in so far as it 
applies to smoke discharge from chimneys of stationary 
boilers—you will, I think, be convinced by the arguments of 
various speakers present, who have expert knowledge upon 
the subject, by proofs they will offer and by the photographic 
illustrations which will be presently thrown upon the 
screen, if time permits. 

With regard to the practical importance of the subject, 
I cannot do better than to quote from the admirable report 
of Chief Smoke Inspector Adams, of the city of Chicago, 
published in one of the reports of the Board of Health of 
that city. 

Mr. Adams says : 

“ Viewed from the standpoint of the smoke inspector, the 1,600,000 
people of Chicago are divided into two classes: (1) those who 
create a smoke nuisance; (2) those who are compelled to tolerate a smoke 
nuisance. One class has radical champions, who maintain that smoke is an 


5 


irrepressible necessity—a concomitant of the commercial and manufacturing 
supremacy of Chicago; that smoke not only is not unhealthy, but that it is 
an actual disinfectant; that the advocates of smoke abatement are visionary 
sentimentalists, and, in a general way, they are emphatically opposed to any 
agitation of the subject.” 

The inspector gives the oth'er side also: 

“ They declare that the smoke nuisance is a positive menace to the health 
of citizens ; that it has resulted in an alarming increase in throat, lung and 
eye diseases ; they point to ruined carpets, paintings, fabrics, the soot-be¬ 
smeared facades of buildings, and to a smoke-beclouded sky, and demand 
that the smoke inspector do his plain duty under the law.” 

The Chicago inspector gives some astonishing facts and 
valuable suggestions. He shows that within the corporate 
limits of the city there are located 15,000 steam boilers, of 
which not less than 12,000 are consumers of soft coal. These 
are scattered over 186 square miles, and no two plants are 
alike. He says : 

‘‘I know of an instance in which a restaurant firm so consumed $600 
worth of coal as to cause an actual damage to adjacent property exceeding 
$25,000. In another instance, an apartment building, under the management 
of a receiver, protected by the court against the enforcement of the smoke 
ordinance, ruined the furniture and furnishings of every residence for two 
blocks in its neighborhood, and depreciated the value of adjacent real estate 
more than one-third of its former value. * * * Fortunately there exists a 
growing contingent around which is crystallizing a sentiment that it is prac¬ 
tical and possible to abate the smoke nuisance without endangering the stu¬ 
pendous interests involved. The most intelligent and active members are 
drawn from the ranks of those formerly largely responsible for the smoke 
nuisance. They now oppose smoke for the same reason that they once 
defended it; they have made the discovery that it is cheaper to abate a smoke 
nuisance than to maintain one, and by reason thereof the smoke nuisance in 
Chicago will be a relic of the past before the close of the present century.” 

A few years ago the city of St. Louis appointed a com¬ 
mittee of disinterested gentlemen (civil and mechanical 
engineers and others) to investigate the smoke nuisance, 
and their report is a valuable document, but limited time 
precludes any other reference thereto. 

The problem of smoke prevention may be studied from 
several different points of view. 

(1) The simplest and best solution is, undoubtedly, the 
use of smokeless fuel. Petroleum is an ideal smokeless 
fuel, and its qualifications were exploited at the Chicago 
Exposition, where a battery of boilers of 25,000 horse-power, 


6 


fed from fuel oil, piped all the way from Lima, O., excited 
admiration. The absence of smoke, dirt, ashes, economy, 
of labor, etc., and beauty of the installation, were the most 
plainly and conspicuously apparent features. Further ex¬ 
amination revealed other merits, thus: i pound of petroleum 
evaporated i8£ pounds of water at 2i2°F,, or more than 
twice as much as the average evaporation obtained from 
coal in ordinary boiler practice. 

In Russia, where fuel oil is abundant, locomotives, 
steamships, stationary boilers and private dwellings use 
petroleum fuel almost exclusively. 

In Chicago, upwards of 2,000 barrels of fuel oil are now 
consumed daily. 

Several years ago the Pennsylvania Railroad investigated 
the subject of fuel oil for locomotives, and sent their chief 
chemist to Baku, Russia, to study the question at the place 
where such oil is most largely procured. On his return, this 
gentleman, Dr. Dudley, said in this hall: 

“ In the experiments already alluded to on the Pennsyl¬ 
vania Railroad, it was actually found, with oil at 30 cents 
per barrel, it cost .nearly 50 per cent, more to take the same 
train of cars 100 miles by means of oil than by means of 
coal.” 

Dr. Dudley stated further that the oil production in 
this country was entirely inadequate to supply the place of 
coal for fuel. The total consumption of coal on the Pennsyl¬ 
vania Railroad, including all its ramifications, was, at that 
time (1888), about 8,000 tons per day. “If now/’ said Dr. 
Dudley, “ this fuel consumption was changed from coal to 
oil, the Pennsylvania Railroad alone would use over 26,000 
barrels of oil per day, and this 26,000 barrels is over one- 
third, and at the present time nearly one-half of the daily 
oil production of the United States; so that lack of supply, 
in this country at least, will, for a long time to come, pre¬ 
vent the use of oil in anything more than a very limited 
way. In Russia, no difficulty of this kind occurs, and for 
two reasons : 

“ First, because the oil supply is enormously greater than 
it is here. When I was in Russia it was credibly stated 


7 


that a new well had been struck, which actually flowed 
more per day than the total daily production of the United 
States. 

“The second reason is that the nature of the Russian 
petroleum is entirely different from American. With the 
largest portion of American petroleum, 75 per cent, is cap¬ 
able of being made into refined oil, leaving 25 per cent, of 
residues. In Russia the figures are exactly reversed 
—25 per cent, only is made into refined oil, 75 per cent, 
is residues. These are what is burned. They have a fire 
test of about 320° to 340°, and look, and are, in truth, 
very much like our ordinary reduced petroleum, known in 
the market as ‘well oil,’ and used for lubrication.” 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Lima fuel-oil fields 
have been discovered since Dr. Dudley’s address was deliv¬ 
ered, events have proven the correctness of his predictions, 
and we may as well abandon the idea of the probability of 
the general use of petroleum as fuel in this country. 

(2) The use of anthracite coal is too well known to re¬ 
quire more than passing mention, but it is an unfortunate 
fact that this admirable fuel has proven unable to compete 
successfully with bituminous coal in the race for industrial 
supremacy, for several reasons. The anthracite coal belt is 
confined to Pennsylvania; the surface croppings have be¬ 
come exhausted, the veins have been followed deeper and 
deeper into the bowels of the earth, and the cost of mining 
is consequently constantly growing larger. Since 1880 the 
output of anthracite has doubled, but in the same time the 
production of bituminous coal has almost quadrupled, and 
new sources of supply of the latter fuel are being continu¬ 
ally uncovered and developed all over the country. 

In 1895 (the latest date for which I have obtained official 
data) the total output of coal in the United States reached 
the enormous amount of 172,426,366 long tons; the bitumin¬ 
ous output was 120,641,244 tons, the anthracite production 
was 51,785,122 tons. 

In 1880 the production was (in round figures): Bitumin¬ 
ous, 38,000,000 tons ; anthracite, 25,000,000 tons. Thus the 
anthracite output in 1895 was double the output in 188c, 


8 


while the production of bituminous coal was more than three 
times as great as in 1880. 

In London and in our Western cities, where bituminous 
coal is used almost universally in households, the smoke- 
abatement question is much more difficult of solution than 
it is in Philadelphia, where anthracite is exclusively used 
(except in a few open grates) in families. 

Since the disruption of the soft coal pool and conse¬ 
quent great reduction in price of bituminous coal,* many 
manufacturers in this city who formerly used anthracite— 
on account of the avoidance of smoke—have been compelled 
to change to bituminous fuel. 

The last annual report of the United States Geological 
Survey (1895-96) contains a table showing the amount of 
anthracite and bituminous coal received, exported and used 
in Philadelphia in 1894 and 1895. This gives the “local ” 
consumption of bituminous coal in those years as 845,000 
tons and 1,060,000 tons, respectively, and of anthracite 
3,540,000 tons and 3,960,000 tons. 

Since the beginning of the present year the increase in 
the local use of bituminous coal has been most noticeable, 
for the reasons already given, and I heard, to day, on 
reliable authority, of an instance where a single customer, 
a large concern in this city, which purchased of the Read¬ 
ing Coal and Iron Company 100,000 tons of anthracite last 
year, and approximate amounts in former years, has not 
bought any anthracite coal this year. The reason is obvi¬ 
ous and the effect is also apparent. 

(3) Smokeless combustion of bituminous coal. 

It was my intention, if time had permitted, to illustrate my 
remarks with a simple, practical demonstration of the cause 
of black smoke production from distilling or imperfectly 
consuming bituminous coal, and to show methods of preven¬ 
tion of smoke, but, in view of the rapidly-passing time and 

* The Railroad Gazette of April 2d, referring to this matter, says : “ It 

was a scramble for tonnage, in which prices had secondary consideration, 
and it is very difficult to quote prices to-day, as they are largely a matter of 
bargain. The nominal quotation is $1.90 at Norfolk, Newport News and 
Philadelphia, with 10 cents differential in favor of the Clearfield region.” 




9 


of the number of speakers who are to follow me, I will not 
occupy more of your attention at present, but will close my 
address with the statement that the result of my own inves¬ 
tigations of the subject of the smoke nuisance from burning 
bituminous coal is, that the problem of its abatement has 
been—in so far as relates to stationary boilers—practically 
solved, and that, in the present state of the mechanic arts, 
the emission of dense black smoke within city limits should 
not be permitted, because it can be practically and econom¬ 
ically obviated. 

Dr. R. H. Thurston [Correspondence]:—I have had very 
little to do in a business way with the matter which is here 
considered; but the subject is one of interest to every 
engineer, and I have, as a matter of course, studied 
it somewhat and, in the course of a now somewhat extended 
professional career, have seen something of the practical 
side of the economical question involved. It is, in fact, a 
matter largely of finance. The nuisance is certainly capable 
of substantial, if not of absolutely complete, abatement, as 
was shown a century ago by Watt, when he produced the 
first “down-draught” furnace, and by hundreds of others, 
up to the time of Charles Wye Williams, and later investi¬ 
gators who have experimented with various expedients 
involving the efficient use of the dead-plate, and the em¬ 
ployment of specially arranged air-ducts, bringing fresh air 
into the furnace at a point at which the smoke, once formed, 
could be consumed, or, more correctly, I have no doubt, by 
which its formation could be prevented, by insuring the com¬ 
plete combustion of the bituminous fuel at the critical 
place and time. 

The preventives which operate more or less effectively 
may be considered in the following order, viz.: Legislation, 
Skilful Operation of Furnaces, Special Constructions of 
Furnaces. 

Legislation may be made effective, simply because it is 
actually practicable to-day to suppress the nuisance by 
means available to all. I am inclined to believe that the 
most effective form of legislation is that which operates 
through the Boards of Health of the cities. By this I do not 


IO 


mean to intimate that the “ smoke nuisance ” endangers 
health in any ordinary case; on the contrary, I am inclined 
to think that the presence of this, which is always a minute 
amount of free carbon in the air, is rather healthful than 
otherwise ; but it unquestionably is a nuisance, neverthe¬ 
less, and possibly such healthful and aseptic influence as it 
has may be more than counteracted, in ultimate value, by 
the malign influence exerted on morals and manners, and 
against that cleanliness which is next to Godliness. 

Boards of Health, however, seem to be the proper agen¬ 
cies through which to bring about this particular reform. 
There should be, in every city, municipal regulations com¬ 
pelling the officers of the municipality to keep constant sup¬ 
ervision over this, as over all other nuisances, and to report 
every case of evident infraction of the law. Then, if, after 
ample warning, the nuisance is continued, the Boards of 
Health should be empowered to take steps toward the 
summary extinction of its source. 

The fines inflicted, under the usual system of sup¬ 
pression, should be such as would make the employment 
of fuel in such manner as to produce notable amounts of 
smoke more costly than the use of smokeless fuels. Per¬ 
haps the most effective and simple system of fines would 
make the assessment a stated sum per month per square 
foot of grate-surface of boilers employed, and during the 
periods throughout which infraction of the regulations of 
the city can be proved. At 15 pounds burned per square 
foot of grate per hour, for a working year of 3,000 hours, 
about 20 tons of fuel will be consumed. The difference in 
costs of bituminous and anthracite coals being taken as, we 
will say, for illustration, $2 per ton, the proprietor can bear 
a tax of that amount, if it should prove necessary, on the 
part of the city, to impose it; and this means about $40 per 
annum per square foot of grate surface. A fine of 25 to 50 
cents a week per square foot of offending grate will thus, 
possibly, abate the nuisance under such circumstances. 
Very likely a much smaller sum may prove sufficient; but 
that is a matter for trial, and one to be settled by experi¬ 
ence. 


In imposing fines, I should propose that they be gradu¬ 
ally raised from some comparatively small minimum, by 
easy increments, to the maximum just indicated. Very 
probably a fine of 5 cents a week per square foot of grate, 
for cases reported, with publication of the reports in the 
daily press, would extinguish a considerable proportion of 
the smoke. Increase to 10 cents would reduce the offenders 
to comparatively small numbers; 20 cents might, perhaps, 
shut down substantially all of the well-disposed, leaving a 
few obstinate cases, or cases of peculiar difficulty from the 
standpoint of engineering, to pay the full cost of smokeless 
fuels until the changes required could be effected. So far 
as my own observation and experience go, this system of 
gradual extinction of the nuisance works by far best. 

The methods of reduction of smoke are well under¬ 
stood by every member of the engineering profession 
familiar with steam-making practice. They all accomplish 
the result in substantially the same way—insuring ample 
air supply and amply high temperature for ignition at that 
point on the surface of the fuel bed at which decomposi¬ 
tion, without ignition, would otherwise occur. Air supply 
in excess at the bridge-wall, or at some neighboring point, 
is a common expedient. The gradual coking of the fuel, 
when first thrown into the furnace, on a “ dead-plate ” near 
its mouth, is a practice as old probably as the steam engine. 
The recent forms of mechanical stokers seem to me, though 
not always successful, to be, in some cases, peculiarly well 
adapted to secure smokeless combustion. The “ down¬ 
draught ” furnace, invented by Watt, and improved in mod¬ 
ern times and by contemporary inventors mainly, is one of 
the most interesting and curious of the later systems of 
combating this nuisance. There are now so many methods 
and so many forms of apparatus which are capable of more 
or less completely preventing smoke, that where there is a 
will, the only obstacle to success in finding the way lies in 
the financial aspect of the case. Both the methods and the 
apparatus needed are now available and well known. 

In some of the Western cities, St. Louis notably, the 
success met with in the reduction of the smoke nuisance 


12 


has been most satisfactory and encouraging. I think that 
even the city of Pittsburgh is profiting by these modern 
ideas to some extent, for it is certainly not as smoky a city 
since its return to the use of coal as before it was blessed, 
temporarily, by ample supplies of natural gas. 

The quantity of fuel lost in smoke is too small to make 
its reduction important as a matter of simple economy. 
Experiments in the Sibley College laboratories, about two 
years ago and since, have shown that, under the conditions 
of those experiments, at least, it was possible to produce, 
“ deliberately and with malice prepense/’ the densest smoke 
being secured that was practicable, about 15 pounds of 
soot per ton of fuel employed. The usual figures for dense 
smoke ranged from 10 to 12 pounds. Of this soot about 
one-half was carbon, the remainder mainly unconsumed 
hydrocarbons, 10 to 15 per cent, of ash and, if collected out¬ 
side the furnace, perhaps 2 per cent, of moisture.—Gilbert 
and Flory, in The Sibley Journal of Engineering, May, 1895. 

It was found that no smoke was ever produced in an 
atmosphere of oxygen. With restricted air supply the 
maximum just stated was obtainable. Low temperature 
combustion and restricted oxygen supply seem to be the 
two main conditions favoring smoke production. Singu¬ 
larly, as it seemed to me, the composition of soot was found 
often to be substantially that of the coal from which it was 
produced. A reduction of the proportion of smoke made 
effects a reduction correspondingly, perhaps proportion¬ 
ately, in the percentage of carbon contained in the soot. 
Thus coal used at St. Louis was found to contain 50 per 
cent, carbon, 36 per cent, hydrocarbons. Its smoke con¬ 
tained 25 per cent, carbon and 10 per cent, hydrocarbons. 
Where no hydrocarbons exist, smoke cannot be produced by 
any fuel. It is evident that in the average case we cannot 
expect reduction of smoke to result in economy of fuel or 
of expenses. It will cost more to extinguish smoke in most 
cases probably than can be gained by its suppression and jts 
utilization as fuel. 

In Circular No. 7, of the Steam Users’Association, of 
Boston, the statement will be found, supported by evidence, 


13 


that “ stokers ” save smoke in all cases. The prime advantage 
of this system, as it relates to the reduction of waste by 
smoke and incomplete combustion, lies in the fact that, 
with continuous and steady operation, the adjustment of 
the air supply, the depth of the fuel bed, and, in fact, of all 
the variable conditions of combustion, become practicable, 
each being gradually brought to its best adjustment; and, 
finally, all conditions being made those of best effect and 
then so retained, without difficulty, in such manner as to 
insure the utmost possible efficiency. Where, as in ordi¬ 
nary hand-firing, the conditions of operation are never the 
same for five minutes at a time, it is evidently impossible 
to insure correct adjustments or conditions of maximum 
efficiency at any instant, much less to preserve them through 
the working day. 

In firing anthracite on board ship—which happens to 
be the practice with which I have been specially and prac¬ 
tically most familiar—I have found this to be the fact also, 
and the steadier the condition of operation the better the 
result. This maximum steadiness is, in this case, brought 
about by regular firing, and at rather frequent intervals, the 
furnace door being opened, by the attendant coal-passer or 
by a neighbor fireman, only during the instant that the 
shovelful of coal is going in and the fireman is getting his 
glance at the best spot for the next; thus preserving the in¬ 
tensity of the fire by thin firing and restricted influx of cold 
air, either through the door when firing or through holes in 
the fuel bed. 

Precautions against reduction of the temperature of the 
furnace by too close contact with the comparatively cold 
surfaces of the boiler is, I think, sometimes a matter of 
more importance than is generally assumed or realized. 
Some constructions of the steam boiler, unsuccessful at first 
in a soft-coal market, have been made more successful, if 
not completely so, by enlarging the furnace-volume and by 
protecting the fuel-bed from loss of temperature by direct 
radiation, the protection being afforded more or less com¬ 
pletely by brick arching and by lining. 

The general principle governing this, as almost every 
other phase of boiler efficiency, may be stated to be: 


14 


Secure maximum temperature of furnace , producing 1 the total 
heat of combustion, as nearly as practicable, before com¬ 
mencing to take off heat for application to steam-making. 
First, make the work of developing the heat of combustion 
perfect, then transfer that heat to the point at which it. is to 
be used. Maximum temperature of furnace insures chem¬ 
ical union, if the combustible and the supporter of combus¬ 
tion are present in proper proportions, and the securing of 
proper proportions then becomes the one essential require¬ 
ment for success. 

I am inclined to expect highest efficiency, ultimately, 
through the use of the mechanical stoker, after “ the survival 
of the fittest ” shall have shown which of the many and in¬ 
genious existing forms is best suited to use with each of 
the type-fuels of the country.— [Sibley College, Cornell 
University, April 19, 1897.] 

Mr. Willi am R. Roney :—I appear before you to-night as 
a substitute for another speaker, who, being unable to come, 
asked me to take his place. Having but short notice, I fear 
I will not be able to add much to what has already been 
said, but will, however, venture a few remarks. 

The production of smoke from bituminous coal is one of 
the results of imperfect combustion. That it should be 
prevented,no one will question; that it can be, few will 
doubt. The problem for the engineer and those connected 
with industrial interests to solve is, how to do this, and, at 
the same time, secure the highest economic results from the 
coal burned. 

I hardly need state before an audience of this character 
that there are four requirements for complete or smokeless 
combustion, but to make my remarks better understood, I 
will name them, viz.: 

(1) Sufficient air to supply the necessary oxygen. 

(2) A thorough mingling of the oxygen with the vola¬ 
tile gases. 

(3) A constant high temperature of air and gases; and 

(4) A uniform supply of fuel, regulated according to the 
demands for heat for steam-making or other purposes. 

If these conditions are present in the furnace, we have 


15 


complete combustion and no smoke. To accomplish all 
this is difficult with the ordinary hand-fired furnace and the 
average fireman, but with a good mechanical stoker and a 
fireman of ordinary intelligence, it can be accomplished and 
bituminous coal may be burned without smoke. 

The first condition, namely, a sufficient air supply, is 
necessary for either flat grates or stokers, and requires a 
good draft, natural or artificial, which can be secured by a 
tall chimney properly proportioned, or by the use of me¬ 
chanically induced draft apparatus. 

The second condition of a thorough mingling of the air 
and volatile gases exists in a hand-fired furnace when the 
fire is new and clean, and the air can pass freely through the 
bed of burning coal, but after it has burnt a while the ash 
and clinker accumulates next to the grate from the constant 
spreading of fresh coal on top of the fire, and the quantity 
of air passing through the grate is very greatly lessened, and 
the economy also seriously affected. But with a mechanical 
stoker having moving grates, the contrary is true, as the 
motion of the grate bars keeps the fire clean and open 
and permits a constant and free circulation of air. 

The third condition, namely, a constant high tempera¬ 
ture of the air and gases, cannot be obtained with a hand- 
fired furnace, as the frequent opening of doors for cleaning 
and firing causes an inrush of cold air, which quickly lowers 
the temperature of the furnace below that required ior the 
ignition of the gases—about i,ooo° Fahr.—and the carbon is 
precipitated in the form of finely divided particles of soot, 
which roll out the chimney as smoke. On the other hand, 
a mechanical stoker, properly designed, can be operated 
continuously without the opening of doors, and the initial 
temperature in the furnace maintained at as high a point as 
is necessary for perfect combustion. Mechanical stokers 
have been applied to reheating furnaces in rolling mills, and 
a temperature of over 3,ooo° Fahr. has been maintained for 
many hours at a time. 

The fourth condition of a uniform supply of fuel is 
equally as important as the other three. Here is where the 
mechanical stoker is especially successful. The average 


16 


hand-fireman fires in the way that he thinks will be 
easiest, which generally consists in piling in the coal until 
the furnace will hold no more, and then sitting down and 
letting it smoke. Even with skilful hand-firing, the supply 
of coal is necessarily intermittent. It is, of course, possible 
to fire by hand and produce practically no smoke, by firing 
often and in very small quantities ; but this is hard work 
and requires intelligence, and it is not easy to find men who 
will do it for the average fireman’s wages. If they have 
the necessary brains, they will not stay in the boiler room, 
but will seek a more desirable place and better pay. The 
result is that, as a rule, we have a very inferior class of men 
in the boiler rooms, and it is not strange that the results of 
average hand-firing are so unsatisfactory, both in economy 
and smokelessness. 

A mechanical stoker of simple design, operated by the 
ordinary fireman, will give a uniformity in fuel supply and 
freedom from smoke unattainable by the most skilful hand¬ 
firing; and with the proper draft will develop a large in¬ 
crease in capacity over hand-firing, and do so without smoke. 
The forcing of hand-fired boilers is a prolific source of smoke, 
as to do this requires frequent slicing and stirring, causing 
large quantities of the volatile gases to escape up the chim¬ 
ney unburned, to pollute the atmosphere and reduce the 
profits of the man who pays the coal bills. This nuisance 
and loss can be prevented, and I believe mechanical stokers 
are the surest means for accomplishing it. 

Another cause of smoke is the fact that very few boil¬ 
ers have sufficient room for the combustion of the gases 
from bituminous coal. Many boilers are set so low that 
almost as soon as the gases are released from the coal, they 
impinge on the cold shell of the boiler, lose their heat and 
pass up the chimney as smoke. Great numbers of boilers 
were originally set to burn anthracite coal, and when the 
change was made to bituminous, no change was made in 
the setting which provides less than one-third the combus¬ 
tion room required by bituminous coal. This is a very com¬ 
mon fault with boilers in New England, where, up to a few 
years ago, anthracite coal was burned almost entirely. This 


i7 


difficulty is completely overcome by mechanical stokers of 
the inclined grate type, as the large combustion chamber, 
combined with the uniform supply of coal and the gradual 
distillation of the gases in the coolest part of the furnace, 
presents conditions most favorable for complete and smoke¬ 
less combustion. 

If you wish to secure the co-operation of those who 
burn bituminous coal, and to enlist them on the side of 
smoke prevention, you must be able to show them that the 
saving in fuel will justify the cost of apparatus to prevent 
smoke. 

The loss in fuel by the production of smoke, is princi¬ 
pally due to the invisible gases which escape up the chimney 
unconsumed, and which, together with the carbon in the- 
smoke, frequently represent a large percentage of the heat 
value of the coal. I have done considerable engineering in 
connection with mechanical stokers during the past twelve 
years, and know, from observation and experience, that they 
will not only give smokeless combustion, but effect a saving 
in fuel and labor which will pay a large percentage on their 
cost. They will save in fuel io per cent, and upwards over 
average hand-firing, which, at the present price of coal in 
Philadelphia, is fully 25 per cent, on the cost of the stokers. 
Where the plants are large enough to require more than 
one fireman, there will be an additional saving in labor. 

If such facts are properly presented to those who are 
making smoke, it seems to me that there should be but 
little difficulty in convincing them that it is for their interest 
financially, to say nothing of their civic pride, that they use 
well-known and proven means to abate the smoke nuisance 
in this city. 

Prof. L. M. Haupt [Correspondence]:—In response to 
your suggestion that I would contribute to the discussion of 
the smoke nuisance question, I would submit that, as the 
unconsumed carbon is simply waste, it would be to the 
interest of all parties to prevent its escape. This can be 
largely effected by more intelligent firing, whereby a larger 
amount of oxygen is admitted over the incandescent 

z + 


i8 


material, instead of being forced through it. This was very 
forcibly impressed on me whilst riding on an engine in 
Ireland, where the fireman fed his fuel in small quantities 
well distributed and left the upper door ajar. We made 
60 miles an hour with a heavy train, and only a thin white 
smoke was emitted from the stack. 

I have requested Col. Thos. P. Roberts, of Pittsburgh, to 
give his experience, and have received from him some 
printed data (sent herewith) which will prove of interest in 
the discussion of this important subject.—No 18 South 
Broad Street, Phila., April 15, 1897. 

Thomas P. Roberts (Correspondence):—I am in receipt 
of your letter of the 10th inst., asking for my views as to the 
smoke abatement question in Pittsburgh, and especially 
with reference to the effect of the city ordinance bearing on 
the subject. 

This is a matter to which, several years ago, I gave con¬ 
siderable personal attention, from the fact of having served 
on committees of the Engineers’ Society of Western Penn¬ 
sylvania and of the Chamber of Commerce, to which the 
subject had been relegated. For the last four years, how¬ 
ever, I have had .time only to be a casual observer of the 
progress that is being made, and, very often, I have been in 
the predicament of wondering how any real progress in 
smoke abatement was being made, while, monthly, there 
was a palpable increase in the visible supply. This is not 
a paradox, however, when all the facts are considered. On 
this point, however, I believe I can safely say that we have 
passed the maximum point of the smoke nuisance in 
Pittsburgh, and, like the National pension list, it must con¬ 
tinue henceforward to decline, and ultimately to disappear. 

Pittsburgh, before the days of natural gas, t. e., prior to 
1883, was the very lions’ den of smoke. Our people had 
become so accustomed to it as actually to take some solace 
to themselves from the statement of English travellers, 
which accorded us the palm even over London. Rarely, in¬ 
deed. in those days were the hills across the Monongahela 
River visible from Water Street, one-third of a mile distant, 
and vegetable life beyond the ailanthus tree struggled in 


r 9 


vain as a beautifier of our streets. With the introduction, 
about 1883, of natural gas, an impetus was given to the sun- 
worshippers, and their doctrine of light and cleanliness 
spread with remarkable rapidity. For several years it was 
possible, from the roofs of the taller buildings, to look over 
the entire commercial part of the city, and see not a vestige 
of smoke, and, generally speaking, the atmosphere was as 
clear as it ever was over Boston, New York or Philadelphia. 

With the decline in the yield of the gas wells and the 
return to the use of bituminous coal under boiler fires, 
organized efforts were made to have introduced in Pitts¬ 
burgh, as far as practicable, smoke-consuming devices. The 
Engineers’ Society, the Chamber of Commerce, and several 
ladies’ organizations, became very energetic in this work, 
and finally their efforts resulted, in 1895, in the passage of 
the city ordinance. This ordinance* is, however, almost 


*AN ORDINANCE—No. 1263—To regulate and suppress the production 
and emission of smoke from bituminous coal, and to provide penalties for 
the violation thereof in the city of Pittsburgh. Approved May 22, 1895. 

Section i. Be it ordained and enacted by the City of Pittsburgh , in Select 
and Common Councils assembled , and it is hereby ordained and enacted by 
the authority of the same , that on and after October 1, 1895, the emission of 
more than 20 per cent, of Black or dark Gray smoke from any chimney or 
smoke-stack where bituminous coal is used as fuel in connection with boilers 
for heating and power purposes, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to 
be a public nuisance. 

Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any Corporation, Copartnership or 
Individual owning, controlling or using any chimney or smoke-stack used in 
connection with boilers within the city limits as provided in Section 1, to 
allow, suffer or permit smoke from bituminous coal to be emitted or to escape 
therefrom. 

SEC. 3. Any Corporation, Copartnership or Individual who shall or may 
allow, suffer or permit smoke from bituminous coal to be emitted or to escape 
from any chimney or smoke stack used in connection with boilers for over 
three minutes’ duration at any one time, shall, in addition to any and all laws 
requiring the abatement of nuisances, forfeit and pay to the City of Pitts¬ 
burgh for every such offence, a sum not less than ten ($10) dollars or more 
than fifty (#50) dollars to be recovered before any Alderman of the County 
of Allegheny or any Police Magistrate of the City of Pittsburgh as debts of 
like amounts are now recoverable. 

Sec. 4 . No discrimination shall be made against any device or method 
which may be used which will accomplish the purpose of this ordinance in 
relation to the said matter. 




20 


as smoky and obscure as the subject to which it relates. 
Sections i, 2 and 3 conflict with themselves, and altogether, 
it is so illy constructed that it may be doubted whether 
there could be any successful prosecutions under its terms. 
The councils of no manufacturing city would be wise in 
entering too boldly upon such a field as this. If the edict 
reads “let there be no smoke,” at least practicable means 
should be pointed out how to maintain fires without its pro¬ 
duction. The lack of precision and general weakness of the 
ordinance may, after all, have been for the best. There 
has never been a desire to employ unduly oppressive meas¬ 
ures against offenders in Pittsburgh, and it has rather been 
the policy of the Department of Public Works, which has 
the enforcement of the ordinance in charge, to be as lenient 
as possible, and, through educational work and experiments 
at the pumping stations, to demonstrate that fuel bills 
might be reduced by proper methods of smoke consumption. 
Thus it is just now that Pittsburgh is a permanent expo¬ 
sition of smoke-consuming devices. 

After two years’ experience, a disposition has, at last, 
been manifested to take further and rather more stringent 
steps in the direction of a more decided reform. It is felt, 
however, that State legislation is necessary before any more 
decided movement is inaugurated; but in what way State 
laws are to be invoked, I am not, at present, informed. 

I called at the Department yesterday, and had a brief 
talk with some of the officials, and was greatly pleased with 
what I learned, and I would advise the Franklin Institute 
to send a representative, or a committee, to Pittsburgh, and 
learn what has been accomplished by the smoke inspector 
and his two assistants. Here, also, examples of all the best, 
as well also of some of the worst, smoke-consuming devices 
could be examined, and I have no doubt that the officials in 
the Department at City Hall would extend every facility to 
inquiring visitors. 

Sec. 5. The Director of the Department of Public Works of the City o f 
Pittsburgh is hereby empowered and directed to enforce the provisions of 
this ordinance. 

SEC. 6. That any Ordinance or part of Ordinance conflicting with the 
provisions of this Ordinance be and the same is hereby repealed so far as the 
same affects this Ordinance. 



21 


The Pittsburgh ordinance applies only to boilers used 
for heating and power purposes. The day for consumption 
of smoke from domestic fires has not yet arrived, not 
because the demand for it is weak, but simply because of 
the fact that no universally applicable system or device for 
its consumption has yet appeared. 

I understand that about 400 firms or establishments 
have already complied with the law in Pittsburgh, either in 
whole or in part. In office buildings, the Roney, the Ameri¬ 
can and Brightman stokers are chiefly used, while some of 
the large street-car line power-houses use the Murphy 
stoker. In one of the largest steel works, where 20,000 
horse-power is developed and 114 steam boilers are in use, 
about 70 of the boilers are now equipped with the Black 
Diamond stoker, and the firm is so much pleased with them 
that they are about to place them under all their boilers. 

I have very frequently seen, most excellent—I may say 
magical—results from the simple use of steam jets in the 
abatement of smoke. From some inquiry as to late experi¬ 
ence I am led to believe that, when properly applied, steam 
jets are a positive and certain cure for even the smokiest of 
fires. There are situations where, from cramped positions, 
as in basements of buildings, and inefficiency in size of 
boilers, not sufficient draft can be secured for complete 
combustion, steam jets would do the work where no 
form of mechanical stoker would give satisfaction. A 
friend who has studied the matter, himself a former engi¬ 
neer in the U. S. Navy, states his belief that the use of 
steam jets is in no way injurious to boiler sheets, a point 
concerning which I had some apprehension. They were 
not, however, in his opinion, economical, i. e., they were not 
coal savers, but ordinarily did not increase the consumption 
of the fuel over ordinary hand-stoking. Their lack in econ¬ 
omy was more than compensated for, according to my 
friend, in the greater reliability and efficiency of the boilers 
in rapid steam production. I was told of a case in this city, 
where a 65 horse-power boiler was worked to 250 
horse-power, yet with steam jets it produced little or no 
smoke. Much appears to depend upon the angle with 


22 


which the steam jets are set. The best practice here, I 
was told, was to arrange the jets about a foot apart, the 
orifices being of an inch in diameter. 

The great trouble in Pittsburgh, and I suppose the same 
is true in other cities, is that the boilers are too frequently 
overtaxed. Architects are, also, much to blame for provid¬ 
ing such scanty room for boilers in buildings. In fact, the 
boilers are generally placed in the very darkest corners, in 
places the owners seldom care to visit—and would see little 
if they did visit. To manage the boilers, an “ engineer ” 
(heaven save the mark) is engaged at wages that, with diffi¬ 
culty, will keep him alive. It has been asserted here by 
steam experts that men can be produced in Pittsburgh who 
will manage certain batteries of boilers with hand-stoking, 
guaranteeing to show up clean “ smoke shade ” cards, and 
who would accept for their pay the monthly saving in coal 
bills they could effect. But it appears that even capital 
and brains, as well as labor, run in such ruts that noth¬ 
ing startling is ever tried. The abatement of smoke seems 
to be especially one of these matters of public interest 
where everybody is hopeful regarding its future, but where 
everything drifts slowly. No matter how much we may 
wish for a revolution here, it will come only through the 
slower process which the omission of one letter of the word 
makes, viz.: evolution.— Pittsburgh, Pa., April 13, 1897. 

D. Ashworth & Son, Pittsburgh, Pa. [Correspondence]: 
—In compliance with the request of your Secretary, we would 
present for your discussion of “The Smoke Nuisance and 
its Abatement,” with special reference to your city, a few 
observations that we have noted from the practice in the 
West. 

The subject of smoke prevention (or, more correctly 
speaking, smoke abatement) is one that has elicited much 
discussion and the earnest consideration of engineers, as 
well as those whose interests are in the commercial indus¬ 
tries that suffer most from the growing evils in this direc¬ 
tion. 

In large cities the difficulties encountered by the engi¬ 
neer who endeavors to abate the smoke nuisance in an old 


23 


plant lie principally in the cramped condition of the boiler- 
room and the lack of provisions by architects for the in¬ 
crease in boiler plants. Not only do we find this condition 
presenting itself in old plants, but the oft-repeated lesson is 
disregarded by many architects, and we may find to-day 
many buildings under erection where no means is left for 
the enlargement of the power plant. 

The loss of power which is attendant on the application 
of such furnaces as involve the use of steam jets is a seri¬ 
ous consideration to plants that are running on the very 
margin of their utmost capacity. We are aware that many 
companies present tests showing an increased efficiency due 
to furnaces of this type; but in no test thus presented to 
us for consideration, nor in many tests that have been pub¬ 
lished, have the engineers deducted the amount of water 
that should be charged to the furnaces. We know this to 
be an important item from comparative tests we have made, 
in which the steam supplied to jets has been supplied from 
another source than the boilers under test, and in which 
the results have shown a marked decrease in the efficiency 
of the boiler. 

Mechanical stoking, if intelligently handled, will aid 
greatly in abating the smoke evil. Some stokers will aid 
the plants that are running at their maximum ; but in install¬ 
ing new furnaces under old boilers, from lack of careful 
study of local conditions, the results are more often of a dis¬ 
appointing nature. 

Numerous devices, such as water arch, brick arches, the 
admission of air at the bridge-wall, etc., have made good re¬ 
cords as smoke abaters ; but with any of these it may safely 
be said that without careful firemen, of sufficient intelli¬ 
gence to study their fires and conditions, satisfactory results 
cannot be obtained. We cannot lay too much stress upon 
the importance of intelligent firemen, and for the fact that 
there are so many men firing boilers with no other thought 
than to shovel in coal, the responsibility lies with the lack 
of appreciation of their employers, who are of the opinion 
that any laborer can shovel coal, and remunerate him ac¬ 
cordingly. 


24 


When the subject of smoke abatement has provoked 
sufficient interest as to warrant legislation, it is to be hoped 
that the matter will be placed in the hands of engineers 
who are competent to aid and instruct the people who are 
offending, by pointing out ways in which they may improve 
their plants, and not in the hands of clerks with the idea 
that any one can tell when a stack smokes. This is not 
what they need. What they require is an honest, unbiased 
engineer, who can show them that the stack not only smokes, 
but why it smokes, and how to stop it. Some cities have 
such men, but others are not so fortunate. 

We are firmly convinced that great strides maybe made 
in Philadelphia, in the way of smoke abatement, without 
imposing burdensome restrictions upon commercial interests, 
and that the results that will accrue will greatly benefit the 
city. 

Mr. Edward Longstreth [Correspondence]: — In reply 
to an invitation to contribute to the discussion of the smoke 
nuisance question, I beg to submit as the expression of my 
opinion, a communication which I addressed, on March 18, 
1891, to a committee of the Councils of the city of Philadel¬ 
phia, viz.: 

“ Having been asked if the black smoke coming from 
locomotives by the use of soft or bituminous coal can be 
burned, I would say, do not make it, but burn the particles 
of carbon as soon as they come in contact with the fire. 
This can be done with a little care on the part of the fire¬ 
man ; he must keep a thin, bright fire, and scatter the coal 
as it leaves the shovel over the fire, and fire often, then very 
little smoke will be seen. 

u Distilling smoke from coal and throwing it into the 
air is a great waste of fuel, as the black smoke is 
carbon—the most valuable part of the coal. The way to 
make an engine smoke is to fill the fire-box full with coal, 
and then let the fireman sit in the cab for the next half 
hour, then fill up and smoke again. Smoke from an engine 
is due to careless or ignorant firing. Thirty years ago, 
when they changed from burning wood to coal on locomo¬ 
tives, I had a great deal to do with numerous devices pat- 


25 


ented to consume smoke, but they soon passed out of exist¬ 
ence, as it was found the plain fire-box with brick arch and 
a good fireman showed less smoke than the best patented 
boilers fired with a bad fireman. 

“Watch the trains and you will often see one section 
not showing smoke, and perhaps with the next section of 
the same train the locomotive will fill the neighborhood with 
black smoke, the engines being the same and burning the 
same coal, but one having a better fireman than the other. 
In England they fine the engineer and fireman for careless¬ 
ness if they let an engine smoke. 

“ The engines are all right (if they tear up a light fire, 
put in larger exhaust nozzles); educate the fireman and see 
that he does his duty, then the road will be richer and the 
neighbors happier.” 

In confirmation of the opinion stated in the foregoing, 
I would draw attention to the following communication, 
which appeared in the Chicago Herald of May 18, 1892, and 
which is self-explanatory, viz.: 

“The warning recently given the railroad companies 
that they would be prosecuted for maintaining a smoke nui¬ 
sance, if they did not apply some smoke-preventing device 
to their locomotives in 100 days, is having a salutary effect. 
The Michigan Central Railroad has 45 locomotives and 
switch engines in use on its Western Division. All except 
8 of these are producing no smoke. 

“The company spent thousands of dollars in testing 
patented devices, but found the best success at last in the 
use of unpatented air, introduced to the fire-box in a very 
simple manner. It comes so near preventing all smoke 
that the company is in no danger of prosecution or excori¬ 
ation. 

“ The fact that a great railroad corporation will unbend 
sufficiently to abolish an offence to the public without 
compulsion is noteworthy, and the spirit in which this par¬ 
ticular nuisance has been abated is commendable. The 
example may well be followed by owners of stationary 
engines, with which the problem of the smoke nuisance is 
much more easily solved. If every man were willing to 


26 


prevent smoke, half the battle against the nuisance would 
be over at once.”— Philadelphia, April 20, 1897. 

Mr. Samuel M. Vauclain: —I did not come prepared 
to speak at length upon this subject, and have arranged no 
data for the purpose. The Baldwin Locomotive Works, 
however, with which I am connected, is one of the largest 
consumers of coal in this city. Several years ago we used, 
principally, the best grades of anthracite coal for steam¬ 
making and furnace purposes. We not only have station- 
ary boilers furnishing steam for operating our plant, but 
we have, as well, large heating furnaces requiring a very 
high temperature, and also cupolas for the melting of irons. 
It became necessary, on account of the enormous outlay 
that we were making for fuel, to endeavor, if possible, to 
effect some economy in that direction, so as to reduce our 
running expenses; and we very naturally turned to the use 
of bituminous coal. We used a great deal of bituminous 
coal, which was well suited to the boilers and furnaces, as 
we had them in operation at the time. 

The result of this change, however, was not a satisfac¬ 
tory one so far as the dirt and smoke and consequent nuis¬ 
ance to the neighborhood were concerned. The financial 
result, however, was very satisfactory. Our boilers were 
not adapted to the economic burning of refuse anthracite 
coal, and, in order to abate the smoke nuisance and effect a 
still further economy in our expenditure for fuel, we decided 
to use the low grades of anthracite buckwheat coal which 
were being put upon the market at that time. 

In order to do this, we threw out our entire plant of 
boilers, some of which had given us long years of service, 
and we could very well afford to dispense with them, sub¬ 
stituting in their place the most modern types of water-tube 
boilers, all fitted with first-class automatic stokers for the 
mechanical firing of the fuel. 

The adoption of automatic stokers was made in order 
to save a large portion of the labor then employed in firing 
our boilers by hand, and also to effect a more thorough com¬ 
bustion and more thorough consumption of the fuel as it 
passed from the bins to the grates and from the grates to 


27 


the ash-pans. As an instance of this, one battery of boilers 
that we have in service—of 1,600 horse-power—requires but 
one fireman and a cleaner. The fireman’s duties are to see 
that the stokers are always working properly, and that 
the water is fed to the boilers in a proper manner. The 
duties of the cleaner are to keep the place clean and polish 
up the bright work and see that the paint work is kept in 
order at all times. Both of these men have a very easy and 
comfortable time, and the steam is furnished at the mini¬ 
mum cost for fuel and absolutely without smoke. 

At the present prices at which bituminous and anthra¬ 
cite buckwheat coal are sold in the city, we are able to effect 
a slight economy by the use of this class of fuel over the 
use of bituminous coal; in other words, we get more work 
from a dollar’s worth of anthracite than from a dollar’s 
worth of bituminous coal. 

In our heating furnaces, an attempt to use the bitum¬ 
inous coal gave us very unsatisfactory results, so far as 
cleanliness and annoyance to our neighbors were concerned. 
It soon became evident that to continue the use of soft coal 
would not only call forth the protests of our immediate 
neighbors but also the opposition of the city fathers. 

The idea then occurred to me that if we could mix that 
fuel with other fuel in some manner that would permit it 
to stand open—in other words, separate the particles of fuel 
so that the air could get at it properly—we would get more 
nearly perfect combustion with much less discharge of 
smoke. 

The experiment was made by mixing 50 per cent, of 
anthracite pea coal with the bituminous coal, and the re¬ 
sult was very satisfactory indeed, causing an almost entire 
cessation of the smoke from these furnaces, of which we 
have a great number congregated together in a very small 
area. We have been following this practice now for sev¬ 
eral years with great satisfaction, and have not only, as I 
have said, avoided nearly all of the smoke nuisance, but 
have also effected quite a marked economy. It is, there¬ 
fore, evident that, with ordinary care and judgment, soft 


28 


coal can be satisfactorily used by mixing it with anthra¬ 
cite coal, and nearly all of the smoke avoided. 

In regard to locomotives, to which you no doubt ex¬ 
pect me to refer in my remarks, I beg to say that this is 
quite another question. The consumption of anthracite 
coal, of course, produces no smoke, but whether bitumi¬ 
nous coal can be burned in a locomotive fire-box without 
making smoke is, of course, the important question to be 
decided. It is a very easy matter for one to say that this 
can be accomplished by careful firing, and opening of the 
fire-door, and in various other methods heretofore alluded 
to. 

In my opinion, however, the question of satisfactorily 
avoiding the smoke from locomotives depends upon the 
amount of coal that it is required of the locomotive to 
consume per square foot of grate surface every hour. If 
the locomotive is so constructed that this amount is excess¬ 
ively high, it is impossible to avoid the making of smoke, 
which occurs from incomplete combustion. Forced firing 
on a locomotive is not only hard on the fireman himself, but 
on the bank account as well, as the evaporative efficiency 
of the fuel is very much reduced, and, consequently, the ob¬ 
jectionable emissions from the smoke-stack are very great. 

Of late years, the practice at the Baldwin Locomotive 
Works, where we design locomotives for burning all grades 
of fuel, has been to have samples of the coal, which is 
intended to be burned in the locomotives, submitted to us. 
We carefully analyze this fuel, and then decide as to the 
proper dimensions for the fire-box, and provisions for the 
admission of air over the fire, so as to avoid, as far as possi¬ 
ble, the emission of black smoke; or, in other words, to 
arrive at as near perfect combustion as it is possible for us 
to do. 

The personal equation, however, on a locomotive, is a 
somewhat large one. The fact that one locomotive will 
make no smoke in starting a train out of a station and pass¬ 
ing through the suburbs of the town, and that another of 
the same class and type, immediately following, will emit 


29 


great volumes of black smoke, is sometimes due to the fact 
that the second engine has been hurriedly called upon to do 
this service, and the fireman has not had sufficient time, to 
use a common expression, to “ burn a good fire,” or, in other 
words, to get his fire in proper shape before leaving the 
station. If the fire be in proper condition before he leaves 
the station, he will have no occasion to put large quantities 
of fuel in the fire-box until after the city limits have been 
passed, but if the fire has not been properly prepared, he 
must get to work at once to furnish his fire with fuel and 
build it up; otherwise, the fire that he had when he started 
will be destroyed by the action of the engine, and it will be 
rendered practically unfit for service, or at least to maintain 
its schedule speed until he has had an opportunity to 
recover the fire and get it in good shape. It is, therefore, 
very easily understood why in some instances a great deal 
of supposedly unnecessary black smoke is made in starting 
trains. 

The chief qualification necessary in a locomotive for 
burning bituminous coal is to have a sufficiently large grate 
area to give an economical coal consumption per square foot 
of grate surface per hour. This condition is found in what is 
known as the Wootten boiler, or Wootten fire-box, as now 
used by a great many of our leading railroads for burning 
refuse coal of all grades. At the present time we are 
changing twenty-five narrow fire-box locomotives and fitting 
them with Wootten boilers, or fire-boxes, for this purpose, 
for the Erie Railroad. The successful burning of bitu¬ 
minous coal in these engines is, of course, obtained by 
exercising some judgment in their manipulation, and their 
chief advantages are their very large grate surface and 
combustion chamber, and the ready facilities for admitting 
air over the top of the fire, permitting it to combine with 
the smoke as it arises from the surface of the fire, and to 
consume it in the combustion chamber before it passes out 
through the stack. We have built engines of this sort for 
burning the very poorest quality of bituminous coal, or 
bituminous slack refuse from the mines, having from 35 to 


30 


40 per cent, of ash in it, and the engines are giving the 
greatest satisfaction. 

I beg to say, in concluding, that, judging from the expe¬ 
rience of the preceding speaker, we are to believe that the 
consumption of petroleum as fuel under steam boilers is 
attended with considerable smoke until the furnaces, which 
are firebrick, have become incandescent. While this is, no 
doubt, true of the cases cited by the speaker, we do not find 
it the case in locomotives, as we have built very large num¬ 
bers of locomotives for burning petroleum, and we find 
that we never have any annoyance from smoke; that if the 
fireman is at all careful and attends to his business, the 
locomotive can be operated under all conditions and at all 
times without making any smoke or dirt whatever. This 
experience is not obtained merely by my own experiments 
between Baltimore and Jersey City, but is the experience of 
all our engineers returning from Russia, for which country 
we have built large numbers of oil-burning engines, and 
where oil is the fuel for generating steam in almost all cases ; 
and its use is absolutely smokeless. 

I neglected to say that for culinary purposes, or domestic 
use, the bituminous coal could be coked at the mines and 
used in that shape if it becomes necessary to avoid the 
smoke from this source. Railroad lines running into Phila¬ 
delphia have resorted to the use of coke for fuel for their 
best trains to avoid the smoke due to the use of bituminous 
coal, and I wish to say that it is perfectly practicable to use 
coke as fuel in all of the various types of bituminous-burn¬ 
ing engines as constructed at the present time. 

Mr. James Christie :—It may serve to demonstrate 
how slowly permanent progress is made, if we reflect on the 
fact that the subject under discussion this evening has been 
actively agitated for over a century; for it is over one hun¬ 
dred years since James Watt burnt bituminous coal, with¬ 
out smoke, by means of his dead plate or retort-mouth in 
front of a fire-grate, and since Benjamin Franklin exhibited 
his revolving or barrel grate, as just described to us. Some 
may further wonder what interest Philadelphia has in the 


3i 


subject, situated as she is so close to the anthracite fields. 
But as we find that bituminous coal is now delivered here 
at a lower price than anthracite of buckwheat size, and that 
the calorific power of the former substantially exceeds the 
latter, we are forced to the conclusion that the subject of 
smoke prevention is now at hand. 

It has long been well known that if the first products 
evolved from coal were passed through a mass of incan¬ 
descent fuel, a smokeless flame was readily obtained. Conse¬ 
quently, the annals of invention are replete with devices to 
accomplish combustion in this way. 

The coal has been pushed up from beneath—keeping the 
incandescent mass on top—constituting the so-called under¬ 
fed methods; the coal has been heaped on top, but the 
draft acting downwards, forming the down-draft systems, 
and the coal has been pushed in horizontally and the incan¬ 
descent mass kept in front of it. This latter is the usual sys¬ 
tem with the mechanical stokers of to-day, and excellent 
results are obtained for steam boilers and similar purposes. 
The down-draft system also gives good results when prop¬ 
erly applied, but I know of none of the under-fed systems 
which have endured. 

I had the opportunity, thirty years ago, to experiment 
on a very ingenious adaptation of the under-fed system, but 
soon found that its inherent defect was a tendency to push 
the ashes and incombustible constituents of the fuel into the 
burning mass, and, unless the fuel was exceptionally pure, 
the fire was rapidly fouled. 

In many furnaces wherein metallurgical and similar 
operations are conducted, it is essential that no uncombined 
oxygen shall pass through the furnace; consequently, there 
will be some smoke emitted even when regenerative fur¬ 
naces and producer gas are employed. Also, none of the 
smoke-preventing methods proposed have been thoroughly 
• effective in the case of domestic stoves and grates, and the 
smoke emitted from these is large in the aggregate in dis¬ 
tricts where bituminous coal is the principal fuel. 

Experience has shown it to be a very difficult subject 


32 


to control by legislation. More can be done by sanitary 
officials whose action is suggestive and advisory rather 
than harsh and repressive. 

Mr. Max Livingstone: — So much has been presented 
this evening about the subject under discussion, that I can 
only add, referring especially to petroleum, that while it is, 
as Mr. Outerbridge has said, the ideal fuel, we can scarcely 
look for its general introduction, as the present production 
would fall considerably short of the demand. 

But it is not with the “ ideal fuel ” that we have to deal 
this evening. Our consideration has to be given to fuel 
responsible for the smoke nuisance, and for its abatement 
we have to look to the, I might say, classical ground of Eng¬ 
land, where, by force of circumstances, every effort has to be 
used to suppress the annoyance. The late hour, however, 
does not permit a discussion in detail this evening. 

Mr. W. F. Durfee, C.E. [Correspondence]:—The smoke 
nuisance is far from being a modern annoyance. About six 
hundred years ago, when the population of London did not 
exceed 50,000, its citizens petitioned King Edward I to pro¬ 
hibit the use of “sea coal/’ and he responded by making its 
consumption a capital offence. His successors, however, 
were more merciful to the users of coal, and its employ¬ 
ment was resumed; but again, in the reign of Elizabeth, 
there were loud complaints against it, and, in 1661, John 
Evelyn, in his Fumifuginm, laments that, “owing to the in¬ 
crease of coal smoke, the gardens no longer are fruitful.” 
In the centuries that have followed there have been a number 
of parliamentary inquiries and some legislation intended to 
mitigate, if not remove, the evil, but, nevertheless, the con¬ 
sumption of bituminous coal has rapidly increased in London, 
and the inquiries and legislation relative to it have all ended— 
in smoke. 

The nuisance of smoke in London is, as it has been for 
several hundred years, felt most severely during the preva¬ 
lence of fog, and the vital statistics of that metropolis furnish 
abundant proof of the great evil of a smoke-contaminated 
atmosphere. We are told that “during the fogs of 1879-80, 


33 


asthma increased 220 per cent, and bronchitis 331 per cent.;” 
and that “in the week ending February 13, 1882, the death 
rate, owing to the dense fogs, rose from 27*1 in the previous 
week to 35'3; diseases of the respiratory organs rising to 994, 
the corrected weekly average of this class of diseases being 
43 °-” 

In discussing the smoke nuisance, which is so unpleasantly 
asserting itself as the manufacturing and commerce of the chief 
cities of our land augment, it is well in the outset to have a 
clear understanding of the objectionable elements of that ex¬ 
ceedingly unpleasant and unsanitary fumid substance, which 
in English speech is called “smoke.” 

Smoke is the result of an imperfect combustion of car¬ 
bonaceous substances, and always has, as an offensive, dis¬ 
tinguishing component, more or less of solid carbon in a finely 
divided or flocculent condition (commonly called “soot”), asso¬ 
ciated with which are various gases and vapors, the character 
and volume of which depend upon the composition of the com¬ 
bustible employed and the degree of perfection attained in 
its burning. 

In some coals we have present a notable amount of sul¬ 
phur and hydrogen associated with their carbon; and the 
gaseous products of the imperfect combustion of such fuels 
would contain carbonic acid, carbonic oxide, sulphurous acid, 
sulphuric acid, the vapor of water, ammonia, nitrogen, car¬ 
bureted hydrogen, and a modicum of other vapors and gases 
of less importance. All of these gases and vapors escape from 
the chamber in which the fuel is imperfectly burned, at a high 
temperature, up-bearing and spreading abroad the flocculent 
-.solid carbon or soot. 

Most bituminous coals, when imperfectly burned, produce 
smoke of substantially the above composition, the elements 
of which are as variable as the conditions of temperature, and 
the “personal equation” of an unskilful fireman can make them. 
It is entirely unnecessary to prove that such smoke is injurious 
to health, or that it is destructive to vegetation, as these points 
are admitted by every candid investigator. What is demanded 
is a remedy for the existing evil. Fortunately that remedy is 


34 


not doubtful, or difficult of acquisition. It consists simply in 
effecting the perfect combustion of the fuel used, and in the 
use of a fuel whose perfect combustion will not produce delete¬ 
rious gases. 

It will doubtless be asked: “Why, if the remedy is so simple, 
has it not been applied long ago? Why has London smoked 
and suffered for six hundred years, when a cure was at hand?” 
To answer this question is as difficult as to say why all men are 
not honest, when it is universally admitted that “honesty is the 
best policy.” London is smoky because it fails to prevent the 
formation of smoke; and Paris is smokeless because it insists 
on a perfect combustion of its fuel. The remedy for the smoke 
nuisance is in the hands of the people who complain of its 
annoyance, and they have only to imitate the conditions exist¬ 
ing in Paris, or any clean, smokeless city, to be rid of it forever. 

It will doubtless be asked—what means have been suc¬ 
cessfully used in the past for the prevention of smoke? An¬ 
swering this question in a general way, it may be said that all 
expedients for the prevention of smoke that have been effective 
have involved a regulated uniform supply of fuel in proportion 
to the requirements, and a regulated adequate supply of air to 
ensure its perfect combustion. 

It would require much more time than is allotted to me 
to describe the various forms of apparatus that have been 
devised for carrying out practically the general principles of 
smoke prevention; but a brief reference to a few of the more 
prominent of these may not be without interest. 

The first successful apparatus, of which we have any knowl¬ 
edge, that burned fuel without the production of smoke, was in¬ 
vented by Abu Musa Dschabir Ben Haiyan (better known by 
the name of Geber), an Arabian alchemist, who lived about the 
end of the eighth century. He is credited with the discovery 
of nitric and sulphuric acids, and of certain preparations of 
mercurial and other metallic salts. Geber called his furnace the 
Tower of Athanor, and from its construction a steady and uni¬ 
form heat could be maintained for an indefinite period. Its 
principal feature was a high cylindrical tower for containing 
the fuel. This tower was flanked by two combustion chambers, 


35 


in or over which the substance or vessel to be heated was 
placed. These chambers were connected with the central 
tower near its base, by flues, in which were dampers for regu¬ 
lating the flow of the gas generated from the fuel. This fur¬ 
nace of Geber was in fact a “gas furnace,” and the general prin¬ 
ciples involved in its construction were the same as we see in 
every-day use in all self-feeding, base-burning stoves, and in 
many gas furnaces for metallurgical purposes pin fact, many of 
the so-called improved gas producers are no better and but 
slightly different from that invented by Geber over one thou¬ 
sand years ago, and he must be regarded as the discoverer of 
the great advantages resulting from converting solid fuel into 
a combustible gas, and then burning that gas in a combustion 
chamber separate from that containing the solid fuel. Geber’s 
furnace was not a mere suggestion, but was in common use by 
chemists in all well-appointed laboratories, until the beginning 
of the present century. 

In 1785 James Watt invented a method of smoke preven¬ 
tion, which is very simple, and in the hands of a careful fireman 
is very effective. I speak from personal knowledge, as I carried 
it out successfully in the burning of bituminous coal under a 
steam boiler thirty-eight years ago. 

Various methods suggested have been patented, and some 
of them carried into successful practice, for preventing smoke 
by feeding the raw coal into the furnace beneath that already 
in a state of ignition. Other inventions contemplate the auto¬ 
matic supply of the solid fuel in a regulated constant manner; 
but from the time of Geber to the beginning of the present 
century no person suggested the employment of the ideas em¬ 
braced in his invention, on a large scale in manufacturing 
operations, and the modern use of the waste gases from blast 
furnaces and refinery fires (which may be fairly regarded as gas 
producers) js believed to have originated with M. Aubertot,, 
superintendent of the forges of Vierzon, in the Department of 
Cher, who obtained a French patent for it in 1807. His first 
apparatus was designed for the burning of lime or bricks and 
the cementation of steel. 

The employment of the waste gases of blast furnaces was 


36 

described by M. Berthier in 1814, but gas was not much used 
as a fuel until 1832. 

The application of gas as a fuel for steam boilers was first 
made in 1832 or 1833, at a furnace in the Department of the 
Meuse, but it was not successfully employed until 1835, when 
MM. Dufournes, Thomas and Lourens solved this interesting 
problem in a satisfactory manner. In 1836, furnaces having 
boilers fired by gas were working with success at Neiderbrunn. 
In 1837 Wilhelm von Faber du Faur made successful experi¬ 
ments at Wasseralfingen, in Wiirtemberg, to burn the gases of 
blast furnaces in a reverberatory furnace, for the purpose of 
refining pig iron. 

In 1839, M. Bunsen, of Cassel, devised an apparatus for 
collecting the waste gases of blast furnaces, for use under 
boilers. In 1840, Mr. Philip Taylor, of Marseilles, applied at 
a blast furnace at Rustel, in the Department of Vaucluse, the 
following-described construction: Gas was carried in a large 
cast-iron pipe from the upper part of the furnace to the boilers, 
which were placed at some distance from the furnace and was 
passed under the boilers through a number of slits, between 
which were other slits (regulated by a valve) for the admission 
of air. This is believed to be the first recorded instance of the 
employment of an arrangement which is now, with slight 
modification, in general use. 

In 1845 Mr* James Palmer Budd obtained an English 
patent for the application of the heat, flames and gases of the 
,blast furnace to the heating of hot-blast stoves, which was car¬ 
ried into practical operation at Ystalyfera Furnace, which was 
using anthracite coal. Mr. Budd calculated the annual saving 
in money, by this use of the gas, at £350; and so satisfied was 
he with his success in utilizing the waste gas, that (says Dr. 
Percy) he even ventured to draw the following conclusions: 
“It would seem to be more profitable to employ a blast fur¬ 
nace, if as a gas generator only, even if you smelted nothing in 
it, and carried off its heated vapors by flues to your boilers and 
stoves, than to employ a separate fire to each boiler and each 
stove. These considerations irresistibly suggest to me a great 
revolution in metallurgical practice—a new arrangement, in 


37 


fact, of furnaces and works, by which considerably above 
£1,000,000 a year might be saved in the iron trade alone.” This 
prediction of Mr. James Palmer Budd has been in no small 
measure realized by the invention of Mr. Frederic Siemens, 
who, in 1856, patented his well-known regenerative gas fur¬ 
naces. 

These furnaces have now been in use in this country over 
thirty years, and their excellent qualities are well known to all 
metallurgical engineers. These furnaces can consume, without 
the production of smoke, any solid substance that is used as a 
fuel, and many things that it would be impossible to use in 
other furnaces. Gas from Siemens’ “producers” can be used 
under boilers with entire success, and the writer used such gas 
for boiler fires twenty-eight years ago. 

In 1868, the writer hereof erected the first steel works in 
which gas was exclusively used as a fuel; in these works were 
two puddling furnaces, three heating furnaces, one 24-pot 
melting furnace, and ten gas producers. Gas from the pro¬ 
ducers was used to fire the boilers. The fuel employed was 
Y\ very fat bituminous coal, and % anthracite coal dust. The 
waste products of combustion passed into the atmosphere 
through a chimney 100 feet high, having a flue 6 feet in diame¬ 
ter. There was no smoke discharged from this chimney, and 
although the works were in the immediate vicinity of resi¬ 
dences and cultivated grounds, there was no complaint of 
smoke or noxious vapors of any kind. 

Every one is familiar with the easy way of preventing a gas 
flame from smoking, and I am only speaking from my own 
practical experience, when I say that it is relatively just as easy 
to prevent fuel from emitting smoke. 

The community that is a sufferer from the smoke nuisance, 
whenever it really resolves to put an end thereto, will find no 
difficulty in securing the services of engineers competent to 
devise and construct the proper apparatus for attaining that 

result. _West New Brighton, Staten Island, N.Y., April 

20, 1897. 

Mr. Arthur Kitson:— Whilst agreeing with most of the 
remarks made by the eminent gentlemen who have preceded 


38 


me this evening, I must say that, in my judgment, the most 
injurious phase of the smoke nuisance has not yet been dealt 
with. It is the popular idea that the really detrimental and 
dangerous part of smoke, when inhaled, is the visible portion— 
the particles of carbon that blacken the atmosphere—and it is 
believed that the cure for the nuisance is to render this carbon 
invisible , by burning it to carbonic acid gas. And the remedies 
that have been offered for its abatement to-night are confined 
to this popular notion. 

Down-draft furnaces and mechanical stokers, invaluable 
as they may be, and undoubtedly are for many purposes, can¬ 
not rid us of the ammonia and sulphurous acid gases that con¬ 
stitute the worst feature of the evil,we are here to discuss. 

The statement, quoted by Mr. Outerbridge, that smoke is 
not really injurious to life—but, on the contrary, is healthful— 
created some amusement. What the writer evidently meant 
was that the inhaling of the visible constituents of smoke was 
not injurious; and this is attested by Dr. Littlejohn, of Eng¬ 
land, who recently reported on this subject to the Sheffield 
Board of Health. He says: “That black smoke in itself, as a 
thing breathed, is prejudicial to health, is even doubtful. 
Miners, who live in an atmosphere of carbon dust, are the next 
healthy class to farm laborers in the kingdom. When they die, 
their lung tissues are found of an inky blackness, but Hirt, a 
great authority on vital statistics, thinks it in the highest de¬ 
gree probable that coal dust (carbon) possesses the property 
of hindering the development of tuberculosis (consumption), 
and of arresting its progress.” 

Now, it is a well-known fact that the death rate in the 
smoky city of London is greatly increased during the months 
when fog is prevalent. In a fortnight of heavy smoke-fog, 
which prevailed in 1886, it is said that the rate of mortality 
rose from 16 *6 to 40 per thousand. One authority asserts that 
an ordinary London smoke-fog kills from 170 to 200 persons 
per day in that metropolis. 

What constitutes the fatal portion of the smoke-fog one 
may readily discover. In Paris, where fogs are frequent at 
certain periods of the year, the death rate is not so materi- 


39 


ally increased, and in Paris coke is the fuel generally in use. 
We have evidence sufficient to show that the visible part of 
smoke is not particularly fatal. The inference is sufficiently 
strong to warrant acceptance that the really dangerous ele¬ 
ments of smoke are those invisible gases formed whenever 
soft coal is burned in an ordinary furnace or grate. Soft coal 
consists of carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, nitrogen and sometimes 
chlorine, with silica, iron, etc., forming the ash. 

The burning of coal is really a chemical problem, and con¬ 
sists in the oxidation of the first three elements. If the supply 
of oxygen is ample, its distribution perfect, and the tempera¬ 
ture of the elements sufficiently high, the products of com¬ 
bustion will be carbonic acid gas, steam and sulphurous and 
sulphuric acids. Part of the free nitrogen combines with the 
hydrogen and passes off as ammonia. 

Unfortunately, however, the ordinary methods of burning 
coal will permit neither an ample supply of oxygen nor its 
proper distribution, and, in most cases, that portion of the coal 
requiring a high temperature is cool during its most critical 
condition. The result is, that instead of getting, as we should 
otherwise do, invisible products of combustion, we see clouds 
of black smoke—unconsumed carbon—emanating from j>ur 
chimney stacks, blackening and disfiguring our buildings, hid¬ 
ing the sun’s rays, and hanging like a pall over oilr cities. This 
is the really injurious feature of the visible portion of smoke; 
Whilst I believe carbon is the least harmful of the various im 
gredients which go to form smoke when inhaled, its physical 
effects in obliterating the sun’s blue rays—which are essential 
to healthy vitality—are sufficient to warrant us in declaring war 
against the nuisance. Light is as essential to the well-being of 
animals as it is essential to plant life. 

To some it may appear that I am giving undue prominence 
to the effects of the sulphur and nitrogenous and chlorine com¬ 
pounds, considering how small is the proportion of these to the 
principal matter constituting coal. It may, therefore, surprise 
those gentlemen to learn what amount is actually given off in 
localities where careful statistics are kept. “If the sulphurous 
acid alone which escapes into the air of Sheffield were de- 


40 


posited by rain within the area which gives it off,” says a well- 
informed writer, “the ground would be washed every year with 
1,000 tons of it per square mile.” Another statistician informs 
us that the amount of ammonia annually sent off by the chim¬ 
neys of London would, if properly treated, furnish over 700,- 
000 tons of sulphate of ammonia. And here we have an illus¬ 
tration of a truth too often forgotten—that the law of health¬ 
fulness is the law of economy. The value of these waste pro¬ 
ducts alone should be a sufficient inducement for us to seek 
some better system of combustion than that now prevailing. 
The value of this vast quantity of nitrogenous matter disfigur¬ 
ing and vitiating London’s atmosphere exceeds that of all the 
fertilizers which England imports annually from Chili and 
Peru. 

From what I have said, you may infer that I cannot regard 
the mechanical devices known as smoke consumers, mechani¬ 
cal stokers, down-draft furnaces, as offering the final solution 
of this problem. To reduce all of the carbon to carbonic acid 
before allowing it to reach the atmosphere, is indeed desirable, 
and one step—perhaps a long step—in the right direction. 
But these contrivances do not get rid of those other objection¬ 
able products. 

The only proper solution I know of is the conversion of 
coal into gas, and its purification before distribution. Fuel 
gas, as it is called, meets every objection that can be raised 
against the burning of coal. It is scientifically correct. It is 
the only means for ensuring perfect combustion and avoiding 
the evils I have enumerated. 

Remembering that combustion requires an intimate con¬ 
tact between the molecules of the combustible and the oxygen 
of the air, and that the more intimate the mixture and closer 
the contact the more nearly perfect the combustion, we can 
readily see how unscientific is the ordinary method of burning 
coal. The ordinary soft-coal furnace is a distilling apparatus, 
where soft coal is thrown upon a red-hot bed of fuel, and the 
valuable hydrocarbons and volatiles are distilled off and con¬ 
ducted unconsumed by a chimney to vitiate the atmosphere. 
Compared with this, the down-draft furnace, in which this 


41 


volatile matter is made to pass through the fire and consumed, 
is entirely correct. 

Before leaving this subject, it may be of interest to some 
members of the Institute to learn that a century and a quarter 
ago Benjamin Franklin was the greatest living authority on 
smoke prevention. He devised two or three different forms of 
smokeless grates, one of which he used during a three years r 
residence in London. The principle was the down-draft, and 
I believe he anticipated the celebrated James Watt in the in¬ 
vention of this form of furnace. The burning of lump coal 
is a gradual process; indeed, it may be truly said that coal can¬ 
not really be burned in lump. Its exterior surfaces begin to 
break into molecules; in fact, this molecular condition is essen¬ 
tial for combustion. The inner portions of the coal, however, 
remain intact, and combustion cannot occur until all the ex¬ 
terior portions are burned away. In burning, however, the in¬ 
combustible portions of the coal (silica, alumina, etc.,) remain 
as a deposit of ash, and serve to check the moleculization of the 
carbon underneath. For this reason a fire will often “go out” 
long before the carbon is consumed, the ash forming a sort of 
“insulator” to the contact of the air. 

The smaller the coal the better the combustion, provid¬ 
ing the air is brought properly in contact with it. Hence coal- 
dust burners have been used with great advantage as heating 
agents in securing better combustion. It is as gases, however, 
that molecular contact and intimate mixtures are obtained in 
practical perfection, and as this is the chemical theory of com¬ 
bustion, it follows that the conversion of coal to gas is the most 
reasonable method to adopt. 

The gasification of coal is no longer an expensive process. 
It can be performed with a loss of not over 14 per cent, of the 
theoretical heat value of the coal, a loss which is consider¬ 
ably more than offset by the more nearly perfect combustion 
and greater efficiency of the gas. In other words, for almost 
all industrial purposes it would pay handsomely to convert the 
coal into gas, and use the gas for heat and power purposes 
rather than burn the coal directly. I have to-day a gas plant 
operating with hard culm from the Scranton culm piles, and 


42 


am running a gas engine with this gas at the rate of 1 %. 
pounds of culm per horse-power. Culm is, as you know, a 
waste product of the coal mines, because of the difficulty of 
burning it. Yet, when converted into gas, it is more efficient 
for industrial purposes than are the better grades of coal if 
burned in solid form. 

Let me say, in concluding, that I am not a believer in legis¬ 
lative methods of reform. The way to stop the smoke nui¬ 
sance is to educate our manufacturers to understand that they 
are not only injuring the city and endangering the lives and 
happiness of thousands by their methods, but that they are 
also wasting thousands of dollars. Should the first plea fail to 
strike a responsive chord in their minds, the latter will be more 
likely to do so. 

Mr. William M. Barr: —In metallurgical operations, the 
construction of a furnace for burning any kind of fuel is usually 
in charge of one who understands the principles of economic 
and smokeless combustion; it is to be expected, therefore, in 
the interests of trade, that such furnaces shall be efficient and 
economical, also that they shall, in the interests of good citizen¬ 
ship, be as nearly as possible smokeless in operation. 

The problem which seriously confronts us in Philadelphia, 
by reason of its numerous, varied and non-centralized indus¬ 
tries, is the possibility that steam boiler furnaces may, under 
the changing conditions of fuel supply, become public nuis¬ 
ances. 

Most of the boiler settings in Philadelphia, especially those 
erected more than four or five years ago, have grates averaging 
not more than 24 inches below the under side of the boiler 
shell, and for anthracite coal this distance has been found to 
yield .good results. 

If these steam boilers are to continue in the use of anthra¬ 
cite coal no change need be made. In the case of bituminous 
coal, however, the problem is altogether different, because the 
combustion consists of two distinct processes. 

When a furnace door is opened to receive a fresh charge 
of fuel, that act in itself lowers the temperature of the furnace 
by the admission of cold air over the fire, the fuel is cold and 


43 


distributed over the whole surface of the grate, a distillation 
of the hydrocarbon gases immediately occurs in such pieces 
as are in contact with the incandescent fuel underneath, and 
this occasions a further lowering of temperature. Now, if the 
first product of this combustion be carbonic acid gas, which is 
probably true, it is certain that it is almost immediately 
changed into carbonic oxide gas during its passage through 
the burning fuel. The distillation of the volatile matter from 
the coal has, as just stated, the effect to lower the temperature 
of the furnace, and this favors the accumulation of minute 
sooty particles of carbon, which, being carried off by the other 
products of combustion, give color to the escaping gases at 
the top of the chimney. In the course of a few minutes the 
temperature is regained in the furnace; at the same time a less 
distillation of hydrocarbon gases occurs; as a result, better con¬ 
ditions of combustion are had, and in consequence less car¬ 
bonic oxide gas and fewer particles of soot; in other words, 
less visible smoke. 

The second stage is that of the combustion of the fixed 
carbon or the coke of the coal; this process is without smoke, 
the products being wholly transparent. 

Hand-firing for small steam plants is likely to continue, 
and it is important, therefore, that the furnace be so con¬ 
structed that if ordinary care be exercised the quantity of 
smoke emitted in any neighborhood may be less than that 
constituting a nuisance. 

Bituminous coal should be broken in small pieces, the 
smaller the better, thinly and evenly spread over the fire; thick 
firing, especially if large lumps are thrown into the furnace, 
is not conducive either to economy or to smoke prevention. 

Referring again to the distance of the grate bars from the 
boiler, my own judgment is that, for bituminous coal, the grate 
bars should not in any case be nearer than 40 inches to the 
boiler, if the coal is one likely to give off smoke. Some bitu¬ 
minous coals do not give off as much smoke as others, and 
steam boiler furnaces designed for localities where a compara¬ 
tively smokeless coal will be continuously used, may have the 
grates 36 inches below the under side of the boiler. Some ex- 


44 


periments have been made with grates 48 inches distant from 
the boiler where unusually smoky coals were used, and with 
excellent results. The explanation of this is easily had, and is 
probably nothing more nor less than the fact that bituminous 
coals require a roomy furnace for their perfect combustion, it 
being a common experience that roomy combustion chambers 
which favor the better admixture of air with the hydrocarbon 
gases and vapors distilled from the fire, give off less smoke 
than others. 

To meet the local conditions of this city, my recommenda¬ 
tion would be that, in all cases where a change is to be made 
within the city limits, in order that bituminous coals may be 
burned instead of anthracite, the boilers be reset, so that the 
space between the grate bars and the under side of the boiler 
should approximate 40 inches. The cost would not be great, 
and, with careful firing, would almost effectually prevent 
smoke. 

For large steam plants automatic stokers may be used to 
good advantage, as automatic and continuous feeding is favor¬ 
able to economy, as compared with ordinary hand-firing, while 
it also lessens the escape of smoke, because of a more thorough 
combustion. It matters little whether they operate upon a 
dead plate caking the coal, and afterwards burning the coke 
from which the gases have been distilled, or whether the coal 
be fed from underneath; either form, if properly cared for, will 
do good service. 

The down-draft furnace has been very successful in smoke 
prevention, so also has the fore-and-aft system of firing, in 
which the products of combustion of one furnace, with its un¬ 
consumed gases and sooty particles, are made to pass over an 
incandescent body of fuel in another furnace, by alternately 
firing one grate and then the other. Changing the current of 
gases through the furnace to the chimney by means of dampers, 
however, involves a little extra labor on the part of the fire¬ 
man. 

Altogether, the solution of the problem is neither difficult 
nor impossible; it simply requires that the conditions be fully 
understood, and that the furnace be adapted to the required 


45 


conditions, based upon a knowledge of the constituents of the 
fuel to be burnt. The subject is not a new one, and reliable 
experimental data are easily procurable for the guidance of all 
parties concerned, and the proper remedy can in each case be 
applied without working hardship to the owner of a steam 
plant, while relieving a neighborhood of what in time may 
become an intolerable nuisance. 

Dr. Wm. H. Ford, President Board of Health, Philadel¬ 
phia, Pa.:—I desire to say that the Board of Health feels very 
much gratified that the Franklin Institute has taken hold of 
the question of the smoke nuisance. This venerable Institute 
is particularly qualified for dealing with practical and scientific 
problems with which the municipality has oftentimes to grap¬ 
ple, and its suggestions received from time to time will enable 
the municipal government to deal more intelligently with ques¬ 
tions involving the health and comfort of its citizens. On the 
one hand, it is interested in advancing industrial arts and in 
legislation, and, on the other hand, it is interested in solving 
problems affecting the health of the community, the solution of 
which is based more or less upon a knowledge of scientific 
principles. Thus the Institute, in furnishing information' on 
questions of great public interest, can be relied upon in giving 
judicious advice without prejudice to any interests involved. 

The discussion this evening has been of a thoroughly prac¬ 
tical character, and has developed points of great interest 
which must have a practical bearing upon the solution of this 
vexed question. Whether such a nuisance exists, or whether 
the production of smoke in large volumes by manufacturing 
establishments, locomotive stacks and the like, is a nuisance, 
hardly enters into the discussion, because the fact is self-evi¬ 
dent and beyond dispute. Various cities, particularly those 
located in our Western country, where bituminous coal is al¬ 
most the sole fuel used, have from time to time legislated on 
this subject, and some of the laws which have been passed are 
exceedingly stringent, perhaps more so than the circumstances 
demand. In our own city, until within recent years, there has 
been little annoyance from the production of smoke, for the 


46 


reason that anthracite coal was almost entirely the fuel used in 
our factories and exclusively so in the household. But the de¬ 
velopment of the bituminous mines in the State has brought 
to our doors, at cheap prices, large quantities of soft coal, 
which is gradually supplanting the anthracite coal. The state¬ 
ments made here to-night show that the ratio of increase of 
consumption of bituminous coal is very much greater than 
that of anthracite coal, and this ratio, for various practical 
reasons, is destined to increase. The result is, that in certain 
localities in the city the smoke nuisance already exists to an 
extent that calls for some legislative regulation preventing the 
discharge of smoke, or, at least, restricting the practice. 

There is, at the present time, before the Legislature a bill 
giving authority to cities in this Commonwealth to pass ordi¬ 
nances prohibiting the discharge of black, brown or gray 
smoke into the atmosphere. This proposed legislation origi¬ 
nated on account of a doubt that has arisen as to the authority 
of City Councils to legislate upon this subject. The injury that 
smoke causes is seen in the household by its damaging effect 
upon fabrics, furnishings, in the begriming of the exteriors of 
buildings, and also in the discomfort which it causes when this 
smoke is produced in large quantities and in considerable den¬ 
sity. There is no question as to the existence of a nuisance 
such as is described as “a nuisance at common law.” The 
question whether the discharge of smoke into the atmosphere 
is injurious to the public health has been disputed by some, but 
from the evidence collected there can hardly be a reasonable 
doubt that there is from this cause a possibility of injury to 
health. The carbonic oxide and carbonic acid that are dis¬ 
charged into the atmosphere no doubt become speedily diluted, 
and it is not likely that they have any serious influence upon 
health; but the finely divided carbon and the sulphurous acid 
and tarry matters resulting from the imperfect combustion 
of soft coal, are undoubtedly agents active in their effect upon 
health. 

It has been stated here this evening that the sulphurous 
acid, and perhaps the fine carbon particles, might be beneficial 
as an aerial disinfectant, but there certainly does not appear 


47 


to be any evidence that the smoky air of towns is freer from 
the poisons of specific diseases than the air of other places. It 
seems to be a justifiable inference to assert that the finely 
divided carbon which constitutes smoke must have a mechani¬ 
cal influence upon the mucous passages, particularly of the 
lungs, and it may be that the sulphurous acid in the air may 
also prove irritating. It is said that persons visiting London, 
who are suffering from weak lungs, complain of the irritating 
effect of the air. Whether it can produce attacks of bronchitis 
and the like is not certainly determined, but it will scarcely be 
disputed that persons suffering from pulmonary disorders have 
their convalescence delayed thereby. 

The question that mainly concerns us this evening is the 
possibility, or rather the practicability, of devising simple 
means of preventing the smoke nuisance, and such means as 
may be applied conveniently and without great expense. It 
appears from what has been said by the experts from different 
cities who have taken part in the discussion this evening, men 
who have practical knowledge of this subject in all its branches, 
that it is entirely feasible to introduce appliances by which the 
smoke can be consumed, thus preventing a nuisance and at 
the same time being somewhat advantageous to the establish¬ 
ments by economy in the use of coal. The mechanical stoker 
seems to have the preference, and as this apparatus has been 
used very largely in England with manifest advantage, and has 
been applied in many instances in our own country, and here 
in our own city in large establishments with great success, it 
is very evident that legislation prohibiting the production of 
colored smoke would not prove a hardship, and it is indisput¬ 
able that such prohibition is required in the interests of the 
comfort of the citizens, if not for the protection of the public 
health. It has also been developed by this discussion that in 
many instances all that is necessary is careful, common-sense 
firing. This necessitates the careful selection of a fireman, his 
proper compensation, and the proper supervision of his work 
in order to require orders to be carried out with precision. 

It may be said that Philadelphia, at the present time, is 
not a very smoky city, and why not wait until the nuisance 


48 


exists before taking steps to correct the evil? To the judicious 
mind this does not seem to be the proper course of action. It 
is much wiser to prevent than to correct, and a regulation pro¬ 
hibiting the emission of colored smoke at the present time will 
not only correct the evil as it exists to-day, but will prevent 
the increase of an evil which is destined in time to cause very 
serious annoyance and loss of money by the deterioration of 
property, and possibly, in certain localities, by the injury of the 
public health. By all means, then, let the wiser course be pur¬ 
sued, which is, to take time by the forelock, and to prevent in 
the early stage what may hereafter become a nuisance assum¬ 
ing such proportions as to make it exceedingly difficult suc¬ 
cessfully to grapple with. The Board of Health places great 
confidence in the ability, wisdom and practical knowledge of 
the Franklin Institute, and for that reason has solicited its co¬ 
operation in securing the application of such measures as will 
compass this subject thoroughly, and overcome, without un¬ 
necessarily injuring the industrial establishments of the city, 
an evil which is already beginning to attract the attention of 
the people, who are anxious that measures be enforced for their 
protection. 

Mr. H. H. Suplee: —One of the principal causes of the 
production of smoke is the chilling of the fire and interruption 
to combustion due to the proximity of the comparatively cool 
boiler to the incandescent bed of fuel. The temperature of the 
fire is variously estimated at 2,500° to 2,800° F., while that of 
the boiler is usually below 350° F., and the result is a chilling 
of the gases and a precipitation of the carbon. This is well 
shown by holding a cold dish above a gas flame and observing 
the deposit of soot as soon as the flame is cooled. 

This fact was well appreciated by James Watt, and his 
patent of 1785 contains as clear a description of the action and 
its remedy as has been made since. The furnaces shown in this 
patent and illustrated in Galloway’s “History and Progress of 
the Steam Engine,” London, 1830, show what is practically a 
gas-producer, a combustion chamber for perfecting the com¬ 
bustion before the gases reach the boiler, and what is practi¬ 
cally the modern “down-draft” furnace. Watt says: “I 


49 


cause the flame to pass through a very hot funnel, flue or oven, 
before it comes to the bottom of the boiler, by which means the 
smoke is more effectually consumed.” 

In recent times such furnaces have been constructed for 
burning wet tan-bark, sawdust and other inferior grades of 
fuel, and if the furnace and combustion chamber are properly 
proportioned, little or no smoke is produced. For large plants, 
however, it is undoubtedly advisable to burn the fuel in a sepa¬ 
rate gas-producer and deliver fuel gas to the boiler furnace, 
thus enabling the lowest grades of culm to be used without 
smoke. Ultimately, I have no doubt that it will be found far 
more economical to use producer gas in gas engines. 

The question of oil fuel seems to be opposed mainly be¬ 
cause of the inadequate supply; and in connection with that, 
attention may be called to the valuable paper of Chief Engi¬ 
neer Nabor Soliani, of the Italian Navy, read at the Marine 
Congress, at Chicago, in 1893, in which he shows that with 
proper care a good smokeless fire can be maintained with oil 
and coal used in combination, about one-fourth of the fuel 
being oil refuse and the remainder coal. 

Dr. Coleman Sellers [Correspondence]:—Finding it 
impossible for me to be present at the meeting on the 19th 
inst., at which the discussion in regard to the “Smoke 
Nuisance and its regulation with special reference to the condi¬ 
tion prevailing in Philadelphia is to be continued, I would 
say that, personally, I can add but little to what has been so 
ably presented by those who attended the meeting of April 
21 st, or contributed by correspondence to the discussion, but 
the subject engaged my attention actively between the years 
1847 and 1857, when residing in the city of Cincinnati, where 
the constantly increasing consumption of bituminous coal both 
in private houses and in factories added year by year to the dis¬ 
comfort caused by soot. 

Legislation is necessary, but whatever is done in the direc¬ 
tion of ordinances should be based upon what actually can be 
accomplished without serious loss or expense to those using 
smoke-producing fuel. 

Residing in a part of Philadelphia where there are no fac¬ 
tories burning bituminous coal, the smoke nuisance has pro- 

41 : 


50 


ceeded mainly from the locomotives in the yards of the near-by 
railroads. That the nuisance can be abated in locomotives by 
judicious firing, needs no further proof than that afforded by 
the correspondence of Mr. Edward Longstreth and Mr. 
Samuel M. Vauclain. Both of them show what part the fire¬ 
man himself plays in the management of the fires so as to make 
the combustion as nearly perfect as possible with the least 
smoke. 

I would suggest that inquiry be made into the condition 
that obtains in regard to the starting of a fire with bituminous 
coal in the yards of the railroad companies, as the number 
of engines that must be prepared and made ready for the trains 
necessitates the frequent re-starting of fires; hence if care be not 
exercised at these points the residents of the city in the neigh¬ 
borhood must necessarily be more or less incommoded. 

I have noticed in the city of London that the starting of 
fires in the afternoon at the great electric light stations has 
been accompanied with such enormous volumes of black 
smoke as to give to the neighborhood the appearance of an 
immense conflagration, and this at the time of the year when 
London is most free from smoke. At the time that I noticed 
this effect, mechanical stokers were not employed, and the 
great discharge of smoke, though coming from very high 
chimneys, was confined chiefly to the period of starting the 
fires and was less apparent afterwards. 

The information that has already been laid before the Insti¬ 
tute by those who have contributed to this discussion seems 
to me sufficient to show that it is possible to burn smoke-pro¬ 
ducing fuels to much better advantage than is done in com¬ 
mon practice, hence the need of an ordinance that can be 
enforced, by an earnest effort on the part of law-abiding citi¬ 
zens in the spirit of justice. The information laid before the 
Institute should be gone over carefully by the committee 
which the Institute has appointed for the purpose, and the 
ordinances that have been passed in various cities for the abate¬ 
ment of the smoke nuisance should also be considered in refer¬ 
ence to the action that should ultimately be recommended to 
the Mayor and the Councils of the city of Philadelphia, as prac¬ 
ticable and likely to be beneficial. 


5i 


Electric light and power stations depending upon coal can 
be operated without any excessive discharge of smoke into the' 
air, and probably without inflicting any hardship upon the 
companies engaged in this work. I think, however, that atten¬ 
tion should be given to the gain that would accrue from the 
use of water-power that is within easy reach of Philadelphia, 
and the introduction of electricity created by the water-power, 
as supplementing what can be obtained from coal. 

It has only been within a very few years that the judicious 
employment of water-power transmitted to users by electricity 
has been possible, and what has now been done in this and 
other countries shows the enormous importance of the utiliza¬ 
tion of what has been placed at our disposal by nature in the 
streams within reach. Legislation is needed to enable these 
water-powers to be so used. Such legislation has been sought, 
but has been met by the strong opposition of those who con¬ 
sider the fishing interests of paramount importance and liable 
to be wholly destroyed by power-development schemes. I 
think, however, that the danger has been very much exag¬ 
gerated and too little attention paid to the real advantages 
that will accrue to the city of Philadelphia by the fostering of 
these power schemes with due attention to all other interests 
involved. Users of power are awakening to the knowledge 
that the mode of transmitting power by shafting and other 
mechanical contrivances is wasteful in the extreme, as com¬ 
pared to what can be accomplished by electricity. I think, 
therefore, that it would be well if some of the earnest thought 
of those interested in the abatement of the smoke nuisance 
were turned also in the direction above indicated. 

Mr. Wm. A. Ingham [Correspondence]:—There is no 
smoke nuisance in Philadelphia. Our clear skies prove that. 

London, Pittsburgh and Chicago have a smoke nuisance, 
and I think all this recent movement here is what I would 
express mathematically as an equation of the second degree. 
That is, the above-named cities have a real smoke nuisance, 
therefore Philadelphia has the right to have one. If not, she 
will be behind the age. 

I have looked south and east and north and west from the 
Bullitt and Bourse Restaurants. I have counted the steam dis- 


52 


charges (every one representing a steam engine run by coal) 
and have also counted the chimneys emitting smoke. Within 
that horizon there is not one in fifty engines which emits black 
smoke. This does not include the Kensington iron mills nor 
the sugar refineries. 

Smoke in moderate quantities is not a nuisance. Here I 
must discriminate: (a) A nuisance is whatever injures or an¬ 
noys. (b) A nuisance is whatever is injurious to health, though 
it may not be perceptible to the senses. 

(a) Excessive black smoke, as in London, Pittsburgh and 
Chicago, smuts and dirties linen and furniture. 

Aside from smut and dirt, is smoke unwholesome? If not, 
there is no reason for the Board of Health to intervene. 

( b ) Now, I do not hesitate to say that a moderate amount 
of smoke in our atmosphere not only is not unhealthful, but 
acts as a purifier. 

Smoke, besides unburnt carbon, which is hygienically inert, 
contains sulphur, which is a well-known disinfectant. 

I believe the malaria in the Juniata Valley has materially 
-diminished since the Pennsylvania Railroad Company has been 
saturating the atmosphere with smoke from its engines. But 
I cannot prove* this, as I have no statistics. 

If smoke is a nuisance anywhere, which is certainly not the 
•case at present in Philadelphia, then it is perfectly easy to con¬ 
sume all smoke under stationary boilers, which constitute the 
great majority of coal users. 

I say it is perfectly easy to do this. There are twenty 
(possibly fifty) efficient devices to consume smoke. The only 
question for the consumers is, will it pay? 

While I admit that a person who burns his smoke, instead 
of wasting unconsumed carbon at the top of his chimney stack, 
will make some saving in fuel, I am not prepared to say that 
even with the best appliances available at present it will be 
economical for him to burn his smoke. 

And this is probably the reason why these devices have not 
been universally adopted. They do save what was uncon- 
sumed carbon. But they cost so much to install and operate, 
that the balance of saving is on the other side. 

To sum up: 


53 


(1) There is no smoke nuisance at present in Philadelphia,, 
as is shown by our clear skies. 

(2) The small amount of smoke emitted from our chimneys 
may, perhaps, be a benefit rather than an injury. 

(3) It is perfectly practicable to consume smoke in sta¬ 
tionary boilers. 

As to locomotives, that is another story. It can be done, 
however, though at considerable cost and some loss of power. 
The best way, in my opinion, for locomotives, is to avoid gener¬ 
ating smoke by using smokeless fuel, anthracite, coke or 
smokeless soft coal. 

Mr. Washington Jones [Correspondence]:—Any discus¬ 
sion of the alternatives of “smoke or no smoke,” or, in other 
words, the perfect or imperfect combustion of bituminous 
fuels, in large quantities, to me seems like ‘threshing old 
straw;” for the numerous, carefully-made experiments (and the 
published reports thereon) by competent chemists and engi¬ 
neers, are conclusive, and, if not known, should be known by 
all who are interested as steam users, too many of whom are 
so indifferent to the material saving that may be effected by 
firing properly, that they neglect to have instructions given 
to their firemen, when and how to replenish the fires. 

I will venture, in this paper, to give a few extracts from 
authorities on the subject: In “The Economy of Fuel,” by T. 
Symes Prideaux (Weale’s Series, London, 1853), paragraph 10, 
will be-found the following: “It is commonly but erroneously 
supposed, that when no smoke appears at the chimney top, 
combustion is perfect. Smoke, however, may be absent, and 
yet the carbon may have united with only 1 atom of oxygen, 
forming carbonic oxide (a colorless gas), instead of with 2 
atoms, forming carbonic acid, and consequently have per¬ 
formed only half the duty, as fuel, of which it was capable, 
whilst the loss of duty on the coal taken as a whole (supposing 
all its hydrogen to have become oxidized), will be upwards of 
40 per cent.” Again, in the concluding words of paragraph 13^ 
“A furnace, immediately after a fresh supply of fuel, requires 
more than double the quantity of air it did the instant before, 
whilst we have no contrivance for furnishing such a sup- 


54 


ply, although without it, throughout the space of time during 
which rapid gasification of the hydrogenous portion is going 
on, more than half the fuel consumed is wasted, and passes 
off unburnt, becoming thereby not only totally unproductive 
in itself, but absolutely an agent of evil, by robbing the furnace 
of the heat absorbed in its own volatilization.” 

In the Journal of the Franklin Institute, (third series, Vol. 
XXXV), will be found an article copied from the (London) 
Mechanic’s Magazine, containing the report of a commission 
consisting of Messrs. Longridge, Armstrong and Richardson, 
appointed by the Steam Colliers’ Association, of Newcastle- 
upon-Tyne, to determine the value of Northumberland coal 
compared with that mined in Wales, which submitted the fol¬ 
lowing: “On the Use of Steam Coals, etc., in Marine Boilers.” 
They say, in paragraph i: “That the coal from your district, 
commonly called the ‘Hartley’s” may be consumed in ordinary 
multitubular marine boilers without making any smoke. (2) 
That this may be done without the adoption of any of the 
warious schemes which have been brought before us. (3) That 
it does not involve any loss of power or economy; but that with 
-a given boiler more water may be evaporated, whilst no smoke 
is made, than can be evaporated with the hardest firing on the 
usual system accompanied by a dense smoke; and further, 
that the economic effect, or the quantity of water evaporated 
by 1 pound of coal, is greater when no smoke is being made, 
to the extent of from 17 to 22 per cent.” 

It is to be regretted that the report does not define the 
phrase “usual system;” but, it may be assumed to mean— 
thick fires and closed furnace doors—as the final report (see 
(London) Mechanic’s Magazine, Vol. 68) describes several sys¬ 
tems submitted to the commission for preventing the forma¬ 
tion of smoke. One of these, commended by the commission, 
is that of C. Wye Williams, C. E., whose well-known “Treatise 
on the Combustion of Coal and the Prevention of Smoke” is 
exhaustive. The plan of Mr. Williams is to admit above the 
fire, atmospheric air through a number of small holes in front, 
and at the sides of the furnace. This plan has been used suc¬ 
cessfully by the writer in many cases, but somewhat modified 


55 


by heating the air by causing it to pass through the ash-pit into 
a hollow bridge wall in which a course of bricks near its top 
and next to the combustion chamber were laid in pairs, on 
edge, about *4 of an inch apart, without cement between 
them, thus forming several apertures of x 2p2 inches, 
through which the air emerges and mixes with the gases. The 
admission of air to the chambered bridge-wall was controlled 
by a damper in the ash-pit. 

All the authorities agree in this dictum: After a fresh sup¬ 
ply of fuel is put upon the grates, air must be admitted above 
them and its volume regulated by a damper. 

Mr. Robert Wilson, C.E., inspector for the Manchester 
Steam Users’ Association, in his “Treatise on Steam Boilers,” 
remarks on page 254: “In burning semi-bituminous steam 
coals a considerable quantity of fresh air is required for com¬ 
bining with the hydrocarbons above the layer of coal, and must 
be admitted directly to the gases at the furnace front, or at 
the bridge, or which is perhaps better, at both. Whichever 
plan is adopted, too great care cannot be taken to admit the air 
in small jets by perforations, or other means, especially when 
its direction is parallel with the current of gases. This ensures 
a better mixing, and prevents, to a very material degree the 
undesirable cooling effect of introducing a large volume of cold 
air in one place, which is liable to defeat the end for which it is 
introduced.” 

Much depends on the fireman. No “hard and fast” rule 
can be applied to the manner in which he should manage his 
fires, but he must learn from experience the working peculiari¬ 
ties of the grates, flues, stack, etc., and adapt his methods to 
them. 

Thomas Box, in his “Practical Treatise on Heat,” says 
in paragraph 111: “It will also be seen in every case the proper 
regulation of the damper is a matter of extreme importance, 
and that nice adjustment is necessary to produce the best 
effect, too much or too little air causing a great loss of fuel; 
an intelligent stoker (fireman), without any knowledge of the 
theory, finds by experience the height of damper with which 
he can do the work with the least fuel; if the work varies he 


56 


watches and adjusts the damper accordingly, and such a man 
should have more consideration and better wages than he 
usually receives.” 

Perhaps the most effective way to abate the smoke nui¬ 
sance will be, not by legislative enactment, imposing a penalty., 
as in the towns of Great Britain, but to convince users of bitu¬ 
minous coal who permit smoke to appear at their chimney 
tops that it is an unmistakable evidence of wasteful firing, for 
which the remedy is in their own hands. Frequent, moderate 
replenishment of coal, evenly spread over thin fires already 
glowing, and a sufficiency of fresh air admitted to the furnace 
above the fires, will prevent the evil. The resulting material 
reduction in the amount of the coal bills will prove to be a 
most convincing argument, and the emission of smoke from 
stacks will be an evil of a past era. 

Prof. H. W. Spangler: —Many furnaces are run in a very 
uneconomical way, and in many places where smoke-con¬ 
sumers, so-called, have been introduced, the efficiency of the 
combination has been largely increased. It is perfectly safe to 
say that in all such cases, even without the use of smoke-con¬ 
sumers, the efficiency might have been largely increased. 

The value of smoke-consumers, as such, to the owner of a 
plant kept in proper shape is practically nothing. That is, a 
furnace hand-fired, having a large fire surface, with the coal 
properly coked before being pushed over the fire, will emit 
large quantities of smoke when the coal is green. The value of 
this smoke, if it could all be entirely burned, has been shown to 
be less than 2 per cent, of the heating value of the coal. That 
is, practically, the smoke is valueless to the owner of the plant. 

In many cases when boilers are inefficiently run, the self- 
interest of the owners will make it easily possible to prevent 
the formation of smoke by persuading them or forcing them 
to put in such apparatus as will, for their sakes, make their 
plants more economical, and for ours, do away with the smoke. 

In those cases where, because of insufficient furnace area, 
very large quantities of coal must be burned per square foot 
of grate surface to develop the power of the boiler, no device, 
short of rebuilding the boiler, will reduce appreciably the for- 


57 


mation of smoke, and in many cases where attendants are 
apparently at fault, closer examination will show that the 
apparatus for burning the coal—the furnace, as distinct from 
the boiler which absorbs the heat—is at fault. 

This question is as old as the burning of soft coal; it has 
been investigated by all sorts of commissions and the techni¬ 
cal papers are filled with descriptions of devices for doing this 
particular work. All these have resulted in little towards cor¬ 
recting the evil, because it is cheaper not to bother about the 
smoke. When these devices have been used it is because 
they are supposed to be heat savers, not smoke preventers. 

Nevertheless, the black soot is a nuisance; the major por¬ 
tion can be prevented in many existing stationary plants, and 
new plants can be erected so that the future annoyance from 
this cause can be reduced to a minimum. 

In the case of locomotives the story is quite different, and 
probably the only feasible method of practically doing away 
with the smoke is to stop using soft coal, although care in fir¬ 
ing will probably reduce the quantity greatly. Even if this 
were done the annoyance would by no means be over. The 
distance to the top of the smoke-stack is so small that the pro¬ 
ducts of combustion, which will always carry dirt and coal par¬ 
ticles with them, will annoy persons living along the line of the 
railroads. The odor of the hot products of combustion from 
anthracite is almost as unpleasant as are those from soft coal. 
Steps should be taken to insure that all locomotives constantly 
in use in the city should be practically smokeless. 

No attempt should be made to prevent the using of soft 
coal, and as each case needs separate treatment, judicious 
advice will, in many cases, accomplish all that is desired. 
When new plants are to be installed, or old ones extended, for 
the use of soft coal, the plans should be approved by the proper 
official before they are built. Sufficient time should be allowed 
before any compulsion is attempted. 

Mr. A. Falkenau: —One of the main objections urged to 
firing so as to give smokeless products of combustion, is the 
danger of loss of heating effect by the use of too great an 
excess of air. It is, therefore, desirable to mark the point 


58 


where the combustion is most nearly perfect; that is, where 
neither smoke is produced nor an unnecessary amount of 
heated air passed up the chimney. 

The Arndt econometer, an instrument for continuously 
recording the percentage of carbonic acid in the escaping flue 
gases, is used to some extent in Europe with apparently very 
satisfactory results. It appears that in some cases where the 
instrument was applied, the amount of carbonic acid indicated 
was only 4 to 5 per cent. In these cases the alteration of the 
grates and furnaces brought the percentage up to 12 or 14. 

With such an instrument in use the control of the furnace 
becomes much simplified, and the point at which the smoke 
just disappears could easily be recorded. The instrument is 
simple in construction, being practically a pair of scales, having 
an inverted glass bell on one arm and counterweight on the 
other. The flue gases flow continuously in and out from the 
inverted jar, and any variation in density is at once read from a 
pointer traversing a scale, graduated so as to indicate the per¬ 
centages of ca’rbonic acid up to the theoretical 21 per cent. 

If instruments for registering the conditions of combustion 
had received the same attention and development as those used 
in the control of .steam, it is likely that the satisfactory solution 
of the smoke question would be much nearer realization. If 
furnaces and flues were regularly equipped with water gauges, 
pyrometers and econometers, a more intelligent class of fire¬ 
men would soon be created. 

Mr. F. Lynwood Garrison: —When fresh bituminous coal 
is thrown upon a hot fire a destructive distillation takes place, 
resembling somewhat that which is effected in heating such 
fuel in a retort when making coal gas for illuminating pur¬ 
poses. In other words, its volatile constituents are driven off. 
These consist essentially of certain combustible gases, the 
moisture and the sulphur compounds. The latter two con¬ 
stituents are extremely variable, and their consideration is not 
necessarily essential to this discussion. It is the volatile com¬ 
bustible gases which give us trouble and are the essential cause 
of smoke; that is, the black, objectionable smoke. The 
amount of these volatile gases in the coal varies, as a general 


59 


average, from 12 to 30 per cent. They consist of marsh gas 
(CH 4 ), ethylene (C 2 H 4 ), some acetylene (C 2 H 2 ), benzol and 
other hydrocarbons, together with variable quantities of car¬ 
bon monoxide (CO). Now even under the worst possible 
conditions some of these gases will be consumed, and only a 
portion will be available for the purpose of producing smoke. 
The most competent investigators have found under fairly 
good conditions that a very small amount of heat is lost even 
when a large proportion of these gases escape unburnt, which 
is especially noteworthy as individually and collectively their 
calorific power is great. Scheurer-Kestner found, even when 
a thick black smoke was produced by limiting the air supply, 
that the loss of heating effect due to the smoke amounted to 
only 1 y 2 per cent, and an increase of air reduced this ^2 per 
cent.* 

It is evident that there is no notable economy to be gained 
in consuming the smoke, and that the cost of the appliances 
necessary to effect its consumption would more than offset the 
increase in heat thereby derived. 

There are two reactions by which the formation of smoke 
may be explained. It is probable they take place simultane¬ 
ously in most cases, and individually under certain conditions. 
Where the fire is very hot, the affinity between the hydrogen 
and carbon decreases; thus when ethylene (C 2 H 4 ) is passed 
over a highly heated surface, a portion of the carbon (black 
smoke or lampblack) is deposited and a new gaseous hydro¬ 
carbon is formed. Then again it would seem that under other 
or perhaps similar circumstances, marsh gas (CH 4 ) reduces 
C 0 2 with the separation of carbon (black smoke). 

Deville showed by the following experiment how hydro¬ 
carbon gases were dissociated by sudden cooling. A curved 
copper tube was introduced into the gaseous current just 
behind the fire bridge, both ends of the tube projecting out¬ 
ward. When the tube was empty it soon attained the tempera¬ 
ture of the gases at that point; if filled, however, with water 
allowed to circulate so as to keep it cool, it quickly became 


Revue Scientifique , April 7 > !888, p. 420. 






6o 


coated with soot produced by the dissociation of the gases. 
Precisely the same thing takes place when we hold a cold plate 
in the ordinary illuminating gas flame. Likewise, everyone 
has noticed at the top of a chimney, that the escaping gases 
often leave a clear space for a few inches, then burst into a 
yellowish flame which, as it arises and comes further into con¬ 
tact with the cold atmospheric air, turns into black smoke. 

The question before us is how to avoid this smoke by burn¬ 
ing the furnace gases before they can become dissociated. It 
is plain, that smoke is either the result of an insufficient air 
supply, or an excess thereof at too low a temperature. 

The effectual means of preventing the formation of this 
objectionable black smoke are limited to two classes of appli¬ 
ances. A third might, perhaps, be included in the indirect, 
though, perhaps, most effectual, system of converting the car¬ 
bon of the coal into gas, the volatile carbon into the combus¬ 
tible gases I have mentioned, and the fixed carbon or coke into 
water gas by means of steam; the gases thus generated being 
burnt under the boilers or used directly to generate power in 
gas engines. 

The first system to avoid smoke is to supply the fuel and air 
in regular and constant quantities by mechanical firing or 
automatic stoking. This method is fairly effectual, and of late 
years has been much improved. Its economy, from a business 
view, is, however, quite another matter, and is determined by 
a variety of conditions. 

The second system is to promote so thorough, quick and 
intimate a mixture of the gases and air as to produce com¬ 
plete combustion. This is often effected by the use of a steam 
jet, which, while doubtless effective in some cases, is certainly 
the means of a great loss of heat. 

When a furnace is hand-fired, the fresh fuel, added inter¬ 
mittently, requires more than double the amount of air it did 
the moment before; here the air supply must also be inter¬ 
mittent, since an excess of air is as bad as an insufficiency; that 
is, the fluctuations of the air supply must be made to coincide 
with those of the fuel. It would seem that these conditions 
can only be met by very skilled firemen, and even, then the 


6i 


results leave much to be desired in the ordinary run of boilers, 
etc. The prevention or absence of smoke does not necessarily 
prove perfect combustion of the fuel. It is sometimes possible 
to prevent smoke by greatly limiting the supply of air, in which 
case a large portion of the potential of the coal may ascend 
the chimney in the form of highly combustible and invisible 
CO, entailing an enormous loss of heat. 

Mr. Jay M. Whitham [Correspondence]:—The proper 
method of preventing smoke is not to form it. Smoke-con¬ 
sumers per se do not exist. Smoke is formed from a volatile 
coal during the period of coking, and because either enough 
air for thorough combustion is wanting as the gases are dis¬ 
tilled, or because this air is not properly diffused, or because 
the temperatures are unfavorable for combustion. 

From a commercial standpoint, smoke, though unsightly 
and annoying in many ways, is no great loss in combustion, 
seldom exceeding one-third of i per centum of the fuel burned. 
When conditions favorable to the formation of smoke exist, 
the efficiency of the furnace is generally low, and a more or less 
serious commercial loss takes place, due to the non-combus¬ 
tion of invisible gases. Conversely, when the conditions are 
favorable for burning the invisible gases distilled from the coal, 
smoke formation takes place only in a slight degree. 

To get good combustion, and hence not to form smoke, it 
is important to secure: 

(1) A grate with from 40 to 70 per cent, of air openings. 

(2) A draft strong enough to produce an active combus¬ 
tion, i. e., not a smothered fire. 

(3) A high furnace temperature. 

(4) A roomy furnace, so that the gases may linger and have 
time for burning before traversing much of the heating ( i . e ., 
refrigerating) surface of a boiler. 

(5) To feed the fuel either regularly, as with a mechanical 
stoker, or lightly and at short intervals by hand-firing. 

(6) To thoroughly understand the fuel to be burned, since 
the treatment most favorable for burning Cumberland coal 
will not be best suited to Reynoldsville coal, etc. 

It is not necessary to expend a large sum in installation in 


order to burn fuel with but trifling smoke formation. In 
hand-firing ordinary furnaces and ordinary boilers, but little 
smoke will be formed if the furnace be coaled lightly, through 
alternate doors. In this way but a part of the fire is covered at 
one time and the gases and air are heated by the remainder. 
The fire should not be sliced or broken up until the coking 
is effected. Openings in the front of the furnace, varying with 
the rate of combustion from ^ to 2 square inches per square 
foot of grate area, are a decided advantage, while but little 
gain results by the use of a split bridge. 

In horizontal tubular boiler settings no special advantage 
results from the use of a refractory coking arch over the front of 
the grate, but its presence is desirable for a volatile coal burned 
under a water tubular boiler. When such an arch is used, of 
course the coal should be coked in front and then spread, the 
fires being from io inches to 14 inches thick in front, and from 
4 inches to 8 inches thick behind. 

The period of smoke formation need never be long when 
using mechanical stokers, if they are properly handled, and 
have sufficient area for the work required. Such devices are, 
however, costly in installation and also in repairs (the repairs 
per year often amounting to from $5 to $10 per square foot 
of grate, while the first cost is from $25 to $40 per square foot). 

The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace is now being introduced 
in Philadelphia, and has been in operation elsewhere for years. 
I have made a number of careful tests of it, varying from ten 
to 132 hours. For thirty-four hours, observers, with stop 
watches, found that the smoke record was about as follows: 

Stack clear . 

Faint gray color 

Dark gray color 

Black . 

Such a record means smokelessness. The furnace is high, 
while the stack gases are low in temperature. The combustion 
chamber is always incandescent, and the stack gases are prac¬ 
tically devoid of unburned constituents, as shown by repeated 
analyses. 

This furnace possesses all of the essentials for smokeless- 


•93 per cent, of the time 

A a a <r a u 

• 4 

2 << << << 

j (( a a u a 






63 


ness and good economy and does not require special skill in 
operation, but is expensive in installation, and may not be 
suited to all kinds of feed waters. 

Mr. W. M. Stein [Correspondence]:—The pollution of air 
and water constitutes a serious problem in densely populated 
manufacturing districts; and the solution of this problem offers 
a wide field of investigation to the engineering and chemical 
professions. The question of the smoke nuisance is a very old 
and difficult one to handle, and numerous inventions have been 
patented in various countries to abate the same or reduce it to 
a minimum. Ordinances have been passed in all civilized 
countries against the smoke nuisance. A great fault of all 
ordinances which I have studied is that they are pointed ex¬ 
clusively against smoke from manufacturing establishments. 
Smoke arising from residences and small industrial establish¬ 
ments is, as a rule, not covered by the laws, and for this reason 
the laws are more or less insufficient or even unjust. 

The aim of all large consumers of fuel is to avoid needless 
waste and the smoke usually connected therewith. Most 
modern works have availed themselves of apparatus giving 
the desired economy and practical smokelessness at the same 
time. Large furnaces can now be economically operated by 
any of the well-known systems of gas-firing. For large boiler 
plants, gas-firing is practicable, or automatic stokers may be 
used, provided that they are well designed. Well-prepared fuel 
of uniform size is necessary to obtain good results with auto¬ 
matic stokers. 

On the continent of Europe several systems of coal-dust 
firing have been introduced with successful results. The fuel 
used is finely pulverized (80 meshes per inch), and this fine 
powder is ingeniously introduced into the fire-place. Practi¬ 
cally, the theoretical amount of air required for complete com¬ 
bustion is admitted. The better systems of coal-dust firing are 
absolutely smokeless. The dust firing is already successfully 
employed for puddling, heating and crucible melting furnaces, 
as well as for boilers. 

The city of Berlin uses a number of dust-firing apparatus 
in connection with some of the municipal boilers. As a whole, 


6 4 


there can be no doubt that large consumers of fuel can arrange 
their plants economically and smokeless. For locomotive fir¬ 
ing in the city limits it would be advisable to use anthracite 
or coke as much as possible. 

To abate the nuisance of smoke arising from domestic fire¬ 
places and small industrial establishments is a much more 
difficult than from large establishments. As a rule, the fire¬ 
places in dwellings and small industrial establishments are 
much less economical, and necessarily cause proportionately 
much more smoke. 

Fortunately our city is so located that anthracite coal and 
coke can be had by the small consumer at reasonable prices. 
The smoke from these sources can be reduced to a minimum. 
Cheap fuel gas can be supplied to small consumers in cities 
located in the soft coal district, and the present state of the 
science of gas-making is such as to guarantee cheap gas for the 
future. 

Personally, I am opposed to legislation for the regulation 
of the smoke nuisance, as it would be very difficult to pass laws 
to cover the subject perfectly without causing injury to many. 
I believe the question will solve itself through the necessity of 
economy. 

Dr. W. H. Ford: —I do not wish to occupy time which 
may be turned to better advantage, but I would like to say 
that the discussion which has occupied two evenings has been 
thorough, comprehensive and conclusive. The results ob¬ 
tained have been definite, and indicate first, that the smoke 
nuisance exists to a considerable extent, although it is not so 
excessive as it might be, and as-it will most certainly become 
in the course of time, unless some measures are introduced for 
its restriction. In the second place, it has been demonstrated, 
very satisfactorily, that the smoke nuisance is entirely unneces- 
sary^, as there are means of its prevention easily procured or 
adopted without entailing any hardship or great expense upon 
the owners of boilers. In the third place, it has been shown 
that by proper ordinances, requiring the application of appara¬ 
tus and the proper management of firing, the smoke nuisance 
may be measurably controlled, if not entirely prevented. 


65 


It is much easier and much wiser to suppress this nuisance' 
now, before it has become so very general, than to wait until 
it has grown to such proportions that any regulation aimed 
at its suppression will necessarily require an immense amount 
of reconstruction, and provoke formidable opposition. 

The decision of the Institute to collect and print the valua¬ 
ble data presented at this discussion, which has been partici¬ 
pated in by experts from different parts of the country, and by 
men who have practical knowledge of mechanical engineering, 
will be of great advantage in consummating the object for 
which these meetings have been called, namely, to suggest and 
endorse a reasonable plan for suppressing the smoke nuisance. 
The collected data and arguments—always useful for reference 
—together with the support of the Franklin Institute, will go 
far toward furthering the efforts that are being made by 
the authorities and citizens in removing from our fair city a 
nuisance which is not only annoying, but, in many cases, posi¬ 
tively detrimental to the public health. 

The President requested Mr. Outerbridge to close the 
discussion. 

Mr. Outerbridge: —Owing to the lateness of the hour, 
I will omit the experimental demonstration I had prepared for 
the purpose of showing how great a smoke a small amount of 
bituminous coal may produce, and how easy it is to thoroughly 
consume this smoke when suitable conditions are provided 
therefor. 

It is not at all surprising to me that the gentleman from 
Reading (Mr. Sternbergh), who spoke this evening, found 
that the introduction of “a large quantity of air” above his fire 
failed to consume the smoke. Excess of air (which contains 
77 per cent, of inert nitrogen) is worse than useless; for smoke 
has a flashing point, just as petroleum has a flashing point, 
but a much higher temperature is requisite to cause smoke to- 
burst into flame. 

In order to successfully consume smoke, it is necessary 
that the air with which it comes in contact should be, at all 
times, heated up to the point, which I have ventured to call 
“the flashing point,” of smoke. An excess of air over the 
required amount is wasteful of heat. 

5t 


66 


A familiar and simple illustration of the flashing point of 
smoke is afforded in the case of a match-stick or other small 
piece of wood held above the chimney of an Argand burner. 
The heat causes the wood to char, the smoke rises with the 
current of hot air and gases, and, being heated up to the flash¬ 
ing point of finely divided carbon, takes fire and burns several 
inches above the wood. 

Soft coal differs from anthracite, mainly in the fact that it 
carries from 25 to 35 per cent, of “volatile matter,” consisting 
of hydrocarbon and other gases, which pass off invisibly, when 
the coal is heated to a moderate degree, and of carbon in fine 
particles, which escape in the visible form of smoke or soot. 
The weight of the smoke is comparatively trifling, and its fuel 
value is therefore small, but the presence of smoke is the visible 
evidence of imperfect combustion of the more valuable invisi¬ 
ble gases. 

The necessity of frequently opening the furnace doors, 
when soft coal is fed by hand, is largely responsible for the pro¬ 
duction of smoke, because the in-rush of cold air reduces the 
temperature in the flame chamber temporarily below the flash¬ 
ing point—-or combustion point—of finely divided carbon. 
The smoke is therefore carried out unconsumed and dis¬ 
charged into the atmosphere, thus often creating a smoke nui¬ 
sance. 

There are, as we know, quite a number of mechanical appli¬ 
ances which have been devised for the automatic feeding of 
coal to stationary boilers and for effecting the complete com¬ 
bustion of smoke. Some of these appliances are simple in 
design others more complicated; some will burn any kind of 
cheap bituminous slack without visible smoke appearing at the 
chimney top, others will not do. so under all conditions. 

Now that the principles of smokeless combustion of bitu¬ 
minous coal are so well understood and are capable of applica¬ 
tion to all stationary boilers, there is surely no reason for the 
encouragement of the growth of a smoke nuisance in this city 
by failure to provide suitable restrictions or regulations. For 
these reasons I think it is clearly within the domain of this In¬ 
stitute to record its sentiments in favor of some practicable 


67 

legislation, and I have therefore prepared a few resolutions 
which I will present for your consideration: 

\\ hereas, The Board of Health of the city of Philadelphia 
has requested the Franklin Institute to investigate the question 
of smoke prevention and to offer practical suggestions relative 
thereto; and 

Whereas, The use of bituminous coal for fuel is increasing 
in this city and is likely so to continue in the future; and 

Whereas, It appears from testimony of scientists and ex¬ 
pert mechanics, presented at this meeting, by invitation of this 
Institute, that it is practicable to burn bituminous coal in sta¬ 
tionary boilers and furnaces without creating a smoke nui¬ 
sance; 

Therefore be it Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting 
that the continuous or frequent discharge of dense black smoke 
from the combustion of bituminous coal is unnecessary and 
should not be permitted within the city limits. 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the 
Mayor, to the President of the Board of Health and to the 
Presidents of City Councils. 

After some discussion, the foregoing preamble and resolu¬ 
tions were referred to the Board of Managers, with the request 
to report to the next stated meeting of the Institute on the 
propriety of their adoption. 

APPENDIX. 

As a matter of general interest bearing on the subject of the 
foregoing discussion and for convenience of reference, there 
is hereto appended copies of the municipal ordinances for the 
regulation of the smoke nuisance, now in force in a number oi 
cities of the United States. W. 

SMOKE ORDINANCES. 

CHICAGO, 11,1,. 

Section 1650. The emission of dense smoke from the smoke-stack of any 
boat or locomotive, or from any chimney anywhere within the city, shall be 
deemed and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, provided that chimneys 
of buildings used exclusively for private residences shall not be deemed within 
the provisions of this ordinance. 

SEC. 1651. The owner or owners of any boat or locomotive engine, and 
the person or persons employed as engineer or otherwise, in the working of 
the engine or engines in said boat or in operating such locomotive, and the 
proprietor, lessee or occupant of any building who shall permit or allow dense 


68 


smoke to issue or be emitted from the smoke-stack of any such boat or loco¬ 
motive, or the chimney of any building within the corporate limits, shall be 
deemed and held guilty of creating a nuisance, and shall for every such 
offense be fined in a sum not less than $5 nor more than $50. 

Sec. 1652. It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Health and the 
Superintendent of Police to cause Sections 1650 and 1651 of this article to be 
enforced, and to make complaint against and cause to be prosecuted all per¬ 
sons violating the same. 

CINCINNATI, o. 

Section i. Be it ordained by the Board of Legislature of the city of Cin¬ 
cinnati, that the emission of dense smoke from the smoke-stack of any boat or 
locomotive, or from any chimney anywhere within the city, shall be deemed 
and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance; provided that chimneys of 
buildings used exclusively for private residences shall not be considered within 
the provisions of this ordinance. 

SEC. 2. The owner or owners of any boat or locomotive engine, and the 
person or personsemployed as engineer or otherwise in the working of the engine 
or engines in said boat, or in operating such locomotives, and the proprietor, 
lessee or occupant of any building who shall permit or allow dense smoke to 
issue or be emitted from the smoke-stack of any such boat or locomotive, or 
the chimney of any building within the corporate limits, shall be deemed and 
held guilty of creating a nuisance, and shall for every such offense be fined in 
a sum not less than $5 or more than $50. 

SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the Supervising Engineer to cause the 
enforcement of this ordinance, and to make complaint against and cause to be 
prosecuted all persons violating the same ; and in so doing he shall be assisted 
by the Superintendent of Police and the Health Officer, and their respective 
departments. 

SEC. 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 
earliest period allowed bylaw. 

CEEVEEAND, O. 

Section i. Be it ordained by the Council of the city of Cleveland that 
the emission of dense smoke from any chimney anywhere in the city, or from 
the smoke-stack of any boat, locomotive or stationary engine or boiler within 
the limits of the city of Cleveland shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be 
a public nuisance. 

Sec. 2. That the emission into the air of any noxious gases or vapors or 
offensive odors from any manufactory, building or premises within the limits 
of said city, injurious to health or annoying to the inhabitants of said city, or 
any part thereof, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a public 
nuisance. 

SEC. 3. That the owner, lessee, engineer, fireman, or other person or 
employ^ having charge or control of, or operating any boat, locomotive or sta¬ 
tionary engine, or boiler, manufactory, building or premises, within the corpo¬ 
rate limits of said city, who shall permit or cause dense smoke to issue from 
any smoke-stack or chimney thereof, or connected therewith ; or any owner, 
lessee, or other person or employe having charge or control of, or operating 
any building, manufactory, building or premises within the said corporate 


6 9 

limits, who shall cause or permit any noxious gases or vapors, or offensive 
odors, as described in Section 2 of this ordinance, to issue from such manu¬ 
factory, building or premises, shall be deemed and held guilty of creating a 
public nuisance, and upon conviction thereof in the police court of said city, 
shall be fined not less than $50, nor more than $100 for each and every such 
offense. 

SEC. 4. That it shall be the duty of the Health Officer of the Department 
of Police to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and he shall, upon his 
own motion, or upon the complaint or information of any resident of said city, 
commence proceedings in the police court against any person for violating any 
of its provisions, whenever, in the judgment of said Health Officer, facts war¬ 
rant such proceedings. 

Sec. 5. That the words “owner,” “lessee” and “person” occurring in 
this ordinance in the singular number shall include the plural; and they shall 
each be construed so as to embrace corporations, or partnership associations, 
as well as natural persons. 

Sec. 6 . That this ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and 
after its passage and legal publication. 

PITTSBURGH, PA. 

An ordinance to regulate and suppress the production and emission 
of smoke from bituminous coal; and to provide penalties for the violation 
thereof in certain districts of the city. 

Section i. Be it ordained and enacted by the City of Pittsburgh ; That 
from and after September 1, 1892, the emission of smoke from bituminous coal, 
or escape of such smoke from any chimney or smoke stack used in connection 
with stationary boilers within the limits of the following defined district: 
Beginning at Miltenberger Street and Second Avenue; thence along the 
northern curb of Second Avenue to the eastern line of the city ; thence along 
said city line to the Allegheny Valley Railroad ; thence along the Allegheny 
Valley Railroad to the Sharpsburg Bridge ; thence along Bridge Street to 
Butler Street; thence along the southern curb of Butler Street to Penn 
Avenue ; thence along the south curb of Penn Avenue to Thirty-third Street; 
thence along Thirty-third Street to Center Avenue ; thence by Center Avenue 
to Devilliers Street: thence by Devilliers Street to Dinwiddie Street; thence 
by Dinwiddie Street to Fifth Avenue ; thence by Fifth Avenue to Miltenberger 
Street; thence by Miltenberger Street to Second Avenue, at the place of 
beginning, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. 

SEC. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any corporation, co-partnership or 
individual owning, controlling or using any chimney or smoke-stack used in 
connection with stationary boilers within the limits of the district, as provided 
in Section 1, to allow, suffer or permit smoke from bituminous coal to be 
emitted or escape therefrom. 

SEC. 3. Any corporation, co-partnership or individual who shall or may 
allow, suffer or permit smoke from bituminous coal to be emitted or to escape 
from any chimney or smoke-stack Used in connection with stationary boilers 
within the limits of the district, as provided in Section 1 as aforesaid, shall, in 
addition to any and all law requiring the abatement of nuisances, forfeit and 
pay to the city of Pittsburg for every such offense a sum not less than $10 or 


7 o 


more than $50, to be recovered before any Alderman of the county of Alle¬ 
gheny, or any Police Magistrate of the city of Pittsburg as debts of like amounts 
are now recoverable. 

SEC. 4. No discrimination shall be made against any device or method 
which may be used which will accomplish the purpose of this ordinance in 
relation to the said matter. 

SEC. 5. The Chief of the Department of Public Works of the city of Pitts¬ 
burgh is hereby empowered to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. 

OHIO STATE ORDINANCE. 

An Act to Provide for the better Protection of Human Life against Fire, 
and Regulate the Construction and Management of Steam-Boiler Furnaces in 
Cities of the First and Second Grades of the First Class. 

Section 4. Every steam-boiler furnace used within the corporate limits 
of any city of the first grade of the first class shall be so constructed or altered, 
or have attached thereto such sufficient smoke preventives as to produce the 
most perfect combustion of fuel or other material from which smoke results, 
and so as to prevent the production and emission of smoke therefrom so far as 
the same is possible. And any person, or persons, association or corporation, 
being the owner or lessee, or having control of any such steam boiler furnace 
(who) shall use or allow the use of any such steam-boiler furnace which shall 
not be so constructed, or if already constructed at the time of the passage of 
this act, shall not be so altered, or shall not have attached thereto such effi¬ 
cient smoke preventives as to produce the most perfect combustion of fuel or 
other material from which smoke results, and so as to prevent the production 
and emission of all smoke therefrom so far as the same is possible, or shall fail 
to keep such steam-boiler furnace for the prevention of smoke, and such 
smoke preventives in good and efficient order and operation, shall be subject 
to a fine of not less than $20 nor more than $50 for the first offense, and for 
each subsequent offense shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $ 100. 
And no steam-boiler furnace shall hereafter be constructed in any city of the 
first grade of the first class, except in accordance with the requirements of this 
section, under the penalty of $50 for each offense. 

SEC. 5. Every person having charge of the igniting, making, stoking, 
feeding or attending any such furnace and any smoke preventives attached 
thereto in good and efficient order and use, shall see that the least possible 
smoke shall be produced and emitted therefrom, and any such person who 
shall fail or neglect to so ignite, make, stoke, feed or attend such furnace fire 
that the least possible smoke shall be produced or emitted therefrom, or shall 
fail or neglect to keep such furnace or smoke preventives attached thereto in 
good and efficient order and use, or shall hinder or disarrange any such fur¬ 
nace or smoke preventives attached thereto, shall be subject to the payment 
of a penalty of not less than $20 nor more than $50 for the first offense, and 
not less than $50 nor more than $100 for each subsequent offense. 

Sec. 6. The mayor of the city in every city of the first grade of the first 
class shall appoint a person of suitable qualifications as Supervising Engineer, 
who shall hold his office for the term of two years, from and after the date of 
his appointment, and until his successor is appointed and qualified; and he 
shall have authority to supervise and require all steam-boiler furnaces in such 


7 ' 


city of the first grade of the first class to be constructed, or if already con¬ 
structed, to be so altered or have attached thereto such efficient smoke preven¬ 
tives, so as to produce the most perfect combustion of the fuel or other 
material from which smoke results, and so as to prevent the production and' 
emission of all smoke therefrom so far as the same is possible, and he shall 
further have authority to supervise the igniting, making, stoking, feeding and 
attending such steam-boiler furnace fires ; and he shall have further authority 
in the performance of the duties of his office, to enter any steam-boiler or 
engine room, or any building not occupied exclusively as a private residence, 
and any person or persons hindering or obstructing him in the performance of 
such duties shall be subject to a fine of not less than $20 nor more than $50, or 
imprisoned in the workhouse for a period not exceeding thirty days. 

Sec. 9. The penalty for any violation of the provisions of this act, not 
otherwise specially provided for, shall be not less than $20 nor more than $50 
for the first offense, and not less than $50 nor more than $100 for each subse¬ 
quent offense. 

Sec. 10. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with this act, 
be and the same are hereby repealed. 

Sec. 11. This act shall go into effect and be in force from and after its 
passage. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

An ordinance declaring the emission of dense black or thick gray smoke to 
be a nuisance, and to provide for the suppression thereof. 

Be it ordained by the Municipal Assembly of the City of St. Louis, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Section i. The emission into the open air of dense black or thick gray 
smoke within the corporate limits of the city of St. Louis, is hereby declared 
to be a nuisance. The owners, occupants, managers or agents of any estab¬ 
lishment, locomotives or premises from which dense black or thick gray smoke 
is emitted or discharged, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon 
conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $50. 
And each and every day wherein such smoke shall be emitted shall constitute 
a separate offense. 

Sec. 2. This ordinance shall take effect at the expiration of six months 
after its approval by the Mayor. 

Approved February 77, 1893. 

An ordinance authorizing and providing for the making of regulations 
limiting and defining permissible smoke emissions, and for the testing of 
smoke-prevention devices, and for the making of such tests and experiments 
as may be deemed advisable with a view to the abatement or suppression of 
the smoke nuisance. 

Beit ordained by the Municipal Assembly of the City of St. Louis , as fol¬ 
lows : 

Section i. The President of the Board of Public Improvements is hereby 
authorized and directed to appoint, with the approval of the Mayor, a com¬ 
mission composed of three competent persons, who shall not be directly or 
indirectly interested in the manufacture, sale or construction of any furnace 


72 


or other article having practical relation to the production or prevention of 
smoke. Said commission shall ascertain by a thorough canvass of the city 
and report to the Board of Public Improvements within four months after their 
appointment, the conditions and liabilities under which manufacturing and 
other parties cannot wholly or reasonably prevent the occasional production 
and emission of dense visible smoke. Such ascertained conditions and lia¬ 
bilities, when approved by the Board of Public Improvements and Mayor, 
shall be published, and thereafter shall constitute instructions to guide and 
limit the officials charged with the enforcement of smoke supression ordi¬ 
nances. And it shall be a valid and sufficient defense against any complaint 
that the offense charged comes within such recognized conditions and lia¬ 
bilities. 

Said commission shall conduct and make practical tests of all devices for 
the prevention or suppression of smoke which shall be submitted to them, in 
accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth, and shall prepare detailed 
reports, stating the facts and conclusions based thereon, as to the efficiency of 
such device, the conditions of its successful operation and the limitations to 
its efficiency. Said report shall be made promptly when any test is completed, 
to the Board of Public Improvements, which report may be rejected by said 
Board if found to be unfair or untrue. If accepted by said Board, the report 
shall be published for the information of the public. 

Said commission shall also be called upon by the President of the Board of 
Public Improvements to make such tests and experiments as may, in his judg¬ 
ment, be needed to determine the applicability of special or smokeless fuels to 
■domestic, locomotive or other uses, with a view to the abatement or suppres¬ 
sion of smoke, and shall prepare detailed reports of the results, together with 
such conclusions and recommendations as in their judgment may be warranted 
by the facts, said reports to be made promptly and printed for the information 
of the public. 

SEC. 2. The commissioners authorized by the preceding section shall re¬ 
ceive, in compensation for their services in ascertaining, by a thorough canvass 
of the city, and reporting the conditions and liabilities of smoke suppression, 
the sum of $r,ooo each, payable upon the certificate of the President of the 
Board of Public Improvements that such report has been made to and accepted 
by the Board of Public Improvements. For their services in conducting tests 
of devices and making reports thereon, they shall each receive the sum of $75 
for each device tested and reported, and for conducting the special tests and 
experiments, as provided in the preceding section, $100 for each series of tests 
or experiments, together with a full report of the same. Said respective 
sums to be paid on the certificate of the President of the Board of Public Im¬ 
provements, that the report of such test has been received and accepted by 
said Board. 

Incidental and other necessary expenses for the above-described investiga¬ 
tions shall be allowed and paid for as other expenses of the President of the 
Board of Public Improvements. 

Sec. 3. Any party having, or claiming to have, a plan or device whereby 
smoke can be prevented or suppressed, and desiring to have the same subjected 
to a practical test and determination, may do so on the following conditions : 

(1) He or they shall notify, in writing, the President of the Board of Public 


73 


Improvements, that such a test is desired, and with such notice shall file a full 
and complete description of the device, with all necessary drawings to show 
its character, construction and mode of operation. Accompanying such notice 
shall be a certificate of the City Treasurer that there has been deposited with 
him to the account of the fund for testing smoke-prevention devices the sum 
of $400, and said sum of $400 shall absolutely become the property of the. city 
of St. Louis, and no claim shall hereafter be made or allowed to refund the 
same or any part thereof ; and upon the presentation of the Treasurer’s certi¬ 
ficate to that effect, the President of the Board of Public Improvements shall 
order the commission to make the test. 

(2) The party or parties.submitting a device shall erect the same at such 
place as the commission may approve, at their own cost and expense, under 
their own supervision, with such provisions for the attachment of instruments 
as the commission may require, and when fillly ready shall deliver the premises 
and equipment to the commission. 

(3) after test is begun, alterations or improvements are desired to be 
made, the party interested must proceed as if submitting a new plan or device, 
unless the several commissioners shall each consent to such alterations and 
waive all claim for compensation for a partial test. 

Skc. 4. Whenever the Mayor shall be of the opinion that the public inter¬ 
est does not warrant the further testing and reporting on devices, under the 
authority of the ctty of St. Louis, he shall notify the President of the Board 
of Public Improvements to that effect, in which event the existence of the 
commission, hereby authorized, shall terminate when tests already in hand 
shall have been completed and reported as herein provided. 

SEC. 5. When the commission created by the preceding sections of this 
ordinance shall have made its report as provided in Section 1, and shall have 
found that there are practicable methods of appliances by which the emission 
of black or thick gray smoke may be prevented, and such report shall have 
been approved as hereinbefore provided; and, also, when an ordinance 
declaring the emission of black or thick gray smoke to be a nuisance and to 
provide for the suppression thereof, shall have come into full force and effect, 
then the President of the Board of Public Improvements is hereby authorized 
and directed to appoint, with the approval of the Mayor, such inspectors, not 
exceeding three in number, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
the following section of this ordinance. Said inspectors shall receive a salary 
of $100 a month each, payable monthly. 

SEC. 6. The inspectors shall have a right to enter, in the performance of 
their duties, at reasonable hours, upon all premises other than dwelling houses 
occupied by less than four families or tenants. They shall collect evidence of 
the facts in the case of the violation of this ordinance, declaring the emission 
of black or thick gray smoke to be a nuisance and to provide for the suppres¬ 
sion thereof, and, with the approval of the President of the Board of Im¬ 
provements, shall report the same to the City Attorney for prosecution. The 
inspectors shall be guided in the performance of their duties by instructions 
given by the Board of Public Improvements from time to time. 

Approved February 17 , 1863. 


74 


Detroit, Mich. 

REVISED ORDINANCES, CITY OE DETROIT, 1895. 

Chapter xc. Prevention of Smoke Nuisance , Approved, June 8 , 1887. 

Section i. The emission from any chimney or smoke-stack within the 
city, of dense smoke, or smoke containing soot or other substance in sufficient 
quantity to permit the deposit of such soot or other substance on any surface 
within the corporate limits of the city, shall be deemed, and is hereby declared, 
a public nuisance. 

Sec. 2. Any owner, agent, lessee, or manager of any building, boat, loco¬ 
motive or other structure in the city of Detroit, who shall cause or permit 
dense smoke, or smoke containing soot or other substance as above, to be 
emitted from such structure, or from any other place which said soot or other 
substance shall damage the property or injure the health of any person, or 
shall especially annoy the public, shall, on the complaint of any person so 
damaged or injured, as aforesaid, or on complaint of any citizen or officer of 
the city, in case of especial annoyance, be liable for each and every such 
offense to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $ 100, or to imprisonment 
in the House of Correction not less than ten days nor more than thirty days, 
or both such fine, or imprisonment in the discretion of the Court: Provided , 
That the provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to buildings used exclu¬ 
sively for private residences or to steamboats. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

An ordinance to prohibit the emission of dense smoke from the smoke¬ 
stack of any boat or locomotive, or from any chimney within the limits of the 
city of Milwaukee. 

The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Milwaukee , do ordain as 
follows: 

Section i. The emission of dense smoke from the smoke-stack of any 
boat or locomotive, or smoke-stack anywhere within the limits of the city of 
Milwaukee, shall, from and after the date when the provisions of this section 
shall take effect, be deemed and is hereby declared to be a nuisance, provided 
that chimneys of buildings used exclusively for private residences shall not 
be deemed within the provisions of this ordinance. 

SEC. 2. The owner or owners of any boat or locomotive engine, and the 
person or persons employed as engineer or otherwise in the working of the 
engine or engines in said boat, or in operating such locomotive, and the owner, 
lessee, or occupant of any building who shall permit or allow dense smoke to 
issue or be emitted from the smoke-stack of any chimney or smoke-stack 
within the said limits shall be deemed guilty of creating a nuisance, and shall, 
for every such offense, be fined not less than $5 nor more than $50, or punished 
by imprisonment in the House of Correction for not more than sixty days. 
Every day which said nuisance shall continue shall be deemed a separate 
offense. 

SEC. 3. Hereafter before approving plans and specifications for the 
erection of any business building or factory within the limits aforesaid, it 
shall be the duty of the inspector of buildings of the city of Milwaukee to 


75 


see that proper provision is made in said plans and specifications to prevent 
the emission of dense smoke from the chimney of said building. 

Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Health and the Chief 
of Police to cause Section 2 of this ordinance to be enforced, and to cause 
complaint to be made against all persons violating the same. 

SEC. 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 
first day of January, a.d. 1898, except that the provisions of Section 3, thereof 
shall be in force from and after its publication. 

Passed February j, 1896. 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

Copy of ordinance submitted to Councils January 1, 1894. (Never acted 
on.) 

An ordinance to prohibit the firing or running of locomotive engines or 
the firing of stationary or portable boilers emitting dense smoke, the result of 
imperfect combustion of soft or bituminous coal, within the city limits, and 
to declare same a public nuisance. 

Section i. The Select and Common Councils of the City of Philadelphia 
do ordain : That the firing or running of locomotive engines, or the firing of 
stationary or portable boilers emitting dense smoke, the result of imperfect 
combustion of soft or bituminous coal, anywhere within the incorporated city, 
shall be deemed and is hereby declared a public nuisance. 

SEC. 2. The owner or owners of any locomotive engine, or stationary or 
portable boiler, and the person or persons employed as engineer or otherwise 
in operating such locomotive or stationary or portable boiler, who shall per¬ 
mit and allow dense smoke, resulting from the imperfect combustion of soft 
or bituminous coal therein, to issue or be emitted from the smoke-stack of any 
such locomotive or .stationary or portable boiler, within the corporate limits, 
shall be deemed and held guilty of creating a public nuisance, and shall for 
each such offense be liable to a penalty of $50, to be recovered in the manner 
that penalties for breach of ordinance are now by law recoverable. 

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the Director of the Department of Public 
Safety to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, and to make complaint and 
and cause to be prosecuted all persons violating the same. 

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 
1894. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

Amending an ordinance entitled “An ordinance declaring the emission 
of dense smoke within the City of Minneapolis a public nuisance, and pro¬ 
hibiting the same,” approved February 16, 1894. 

The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows: 

Section i . That an ordinance entitled ‘ * An ordinance declaring the emission 
of dense smoke within the City of Minneppolis a public nuisance and pro¬ 
hibiting the same, approved February 16, 1894, be and the same is hereby 
amended so as to read as follows : 

SEC. I. The emission of dense smoke from the smoke-stack of any loco¬ 
motive or engine, or from the smoke-stack of any stationary engine, or from 
the smoke-stack or chimney of any building anywhere within the City of 


76 

Minneapolis shall be deemed, and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance 
and is hereby prohibited. 

SEC. 2. The owner or owners of any locomotive engine and the general 
manager, superintendent, yard-master or other officer of any railroad com¬ 
pany having charge or control of the operation of any locomotive engine, and 
the person or persons employed as engineer or fireman in operating such loco¬ 
motive engine, who shall cause, permit or allow dense smoke to issue or be 
be emitted from the smoke-stack of any such locomotive engine within the 
City of Minneapolis, shall be deemed and held guilty of creating a public 
nuisance, and of violating the provisions of this ordinance. 

Sec. 3. The owner, lessee or occupant of any building, and the fireman, 
engineer, or any other person having charge or control of any furnace or 
stationary engine who shall cause, permit, or allow dense smoke to issue or be 
emitted from the smoke-stack or chimney connected with any such furnace or 
stationary engine within the city of Minneapolis, shall be deemed and held 
guilty of creating a public nuisance and of violating the provisions of this 
ordinance. 

SEC. 4. Any person or persons violating the provisions of this ordinance 
shall, upon conviction thereof before the Municipal Court of said city, for 
every such offense, be punished by a fine of not exceeding $100, and may be 
imprisoned until such fine is paid, not exceeding ninety days. 

SEC. 5. It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Health and Super¬ 
intendent of Police to cause this ordinance to be enforced and to cause to be 
prosecuted all persons violating the same. 

Sec. 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its 
publication. 

Passed September 25, 1895. 
















•• , 

life 

, 







- v r u % , 








\ 










4 


















\ 









(/ f 




1 



) 






$ 





































































